# BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats



## novasteve

BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods

But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass


----------



## Slacker

Quote: "While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern," ...

Once again I have to ask WHY? Why does the government feel it needs to ban something? Look at the first half of that quote. An informed public and the free market are working yet the government still wants to ban trans fats. By the logic they use (trans fats ..."remain an area of significant public health concern") then why don't they ban cigarettes? Our government is ban happy.


----------



## BDBoop

Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?_r=0



> &#8220;That will make it a challenge, to be honest,&#8221; said Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods at the F.D.A.
> 
> *Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, the agency&#8217;s commissioner, said the rules could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year.*
> 
> The move concluded three decades of battles by public health advocates against artificial trans fats, which occur when liquid oil is treated with hydrogen gas and made solid. The long-lasting fats became popular in frying and baking and in household items like margarine, and were cheaper than animal fat, like butter.
> 
> But over the years, scientific evidence has shown they are worse than any other fat for health because they raise the levels of so-called bad cholesterol and can lower the levels of good cholesterol. In 2006, an F.D.A. rule went into effect requiring that artificial trans fats be listed on food labels, a shift that prompted many large producers to eliminate them. A year earlier, New York City told restaurants to stop using artificial trans fats in cooking. Many major chains like McDonalds, found substitutes, and eliminated trans fats.


----------



## novasteve

They are faggots who know better than you, this must be banned


----------



## Borillar

You sure seem to have an obsession with gay sex. You tie it to completely unrelated things and events. WTF does it have to do with trans-fats and the FDA? Do you worry that there is a gay person behind every corner waiting to catch you unaware so he can fuck you in the ass?


----------



## Little-Acorn

You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.

The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.

Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.

As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.

Move along.

----------------------------------------------------------------

FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats

Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.

Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.

Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.

To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)


----------



## LordBrownTrout

They love us so much.


----------



## Black_Label

Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.


----------



## bendog

There goes the republic ... right down the old shittter.


----------



## MikeK

It's a good idea.  That stuff is poison and should not be freely available in foods.

It makes no sense for trans-fat to be readily available for consumption while marijuana, which is totally benign, is banned.


----------



## martybegan

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.

I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The FDA has been making these decisions for decades about what is best for you. Besides, it was a republican that create the FDA. Conseravtives always find themselves guilty of starting this shit and then blaming LOLberals when they "didn't think that these things would be used this way" after the fact.


----------



## Black_Label

martybegan said:


> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.



They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.


----------



## Mustang

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could lead the campaign to bring back lead paint.


----------



## novasteve

I meant faggot as in annoying liberal, not homosexual


----------



## martybegan

Mustang said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could lead the campaign to bring back lead paint.
Click to expand...


I was smart enough when i was 4 not to eat the paint chips, unlike some posters here currently.


----------



## martybegan

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.
Click to expand...


So by your logic if you decide to go skiing, or any other high risk activity, I shouldnt have to cover your insurance costs? After all, I have never skiied once in my life..


----------



## The Rabbi

The regulatory agencies are simply out of control.  If someone really thinks this "might save 2000 heart attacks a year" they are full of shit or totally deluded.


----------



## Political Junky

Wise move.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

MikeK said:


> It's a good idea.  That stuff is poison and should not be freely available in foods.
> 
> It makes no sense for trans-fat to be readily available for consumption while marijuana, which is totally benign, is banned.



The solution to prohibition is not more prohibition.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good idea.  That stuff is poison and should not be freely available in foods.
> 
> It makes no sense for trans-fat to be readily available for consumption while marijuana, which is totally benign, is banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to prohibition is not more prohibition.
Click to expand...


To a Statist is is. Intervention is absolutely an essential firearm in the arsenal. Statists are only against intervention when it produces the favoritism they long for.


----------



## bendog

Obama has no biz worrying about my heart.  It's MINE


----------



## TemplarKormac

A ban is just that, a ban. This further evidentiates the existence of a nanny state.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

TakeAStepBack said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good idea.  That stuff is poison and should not be freely available in foods.
> 
> It makes no sense for trans-fat to be readily available for consumption while marijuana, which is totally benign, is banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to prohibition is not more prohibition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a Statist is is. Intervention is absolutely an essential firearm in the arsenal. Statists are only against intervention when it produces the favoritism they long for.
Click to expand...


Better start arresting people who eat what the government tells us is unhealthy, even though their guidelines have led to rampant obesity and health issues.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Political Junky said:


> Wise move.



It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?


----------



## The Rabbi

TemplarKormac said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
Click to expand...


Hands off my bologna!


----------



## bendog

I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TemplarKormac said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
Click to expand...


Integrity and principle aren't part of the LOLberal lexicon.

They simply base every decision on a feeling. Even if it leads to double standards or blatant hypocrisy.


----------



## Mustang

bendog said:


> I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.



I'm sure it can be arranged that you get one of the last shipments.


----------



## novasteve

You can't eat what I don't approve of but you must approve of buggery!


----------



## NLT

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not, that's why all these *fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof.* If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.
Click to expand...


You are a idiot.

African-American women have highest obesity rate: CDC says | WJLA.com

Fat black obama voters are driving rates through the roof.


----------



## kiwiman127

Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!


----------



## BDBoop

Borillar said:


> You sure seem to have an obsession with gay sex. You tie it to completely unrelated things and events. WTF does it have to do with trans-fats and the FDA? Do you worry that there is a gay person behind every corner waiting to catch you unaware so he can fuck you in the ass?



Oh, you shoosh.

He dares to dream. Let the man dream!!!


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
Click to expand...


Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.

Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You mean the republican created FDA wants to ban trans fat? Yeah, there is another thread on it.


----------



## bendog

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.


----------



## The Rabbi

kiwiman127 said:


> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!



If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
Click to expand...



Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:

How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?

Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item. 

Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them. 

but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.


----------



## The Rabbi

bendog said:


> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.



Bullshit.


----------



## Spiderman

We should be frying foods the old fashioned way

with lard.


----------



## martybegan

kiwiman127 said:


> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!



Fine, now ban skiing, and any extreme sports that result in injuries, knee and hip replacements, and other "costs" that I have to pay for.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

bendog said:


> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.



As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.


----------



## Gadawg73

And cigarettes are still legal.
Government sure is smart.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Spiderman said:


> We should be frying foods the old fashioned way
> 
> with lard.



We shoudl probably leave the decision to the indiviual. Something both republicans adn democrat LOLberals absolutely despise.


----------



## boedicca

ObamaCare causes millions to lose their health insurance, but we are supposed to ban a currently legal product in order to save 2,000.

Go figure.


----------



## Interpol

Transfats are poison. 

America's obesity and diabetes scourge is costing several tens of billions of dollars a year. 

Republicans always want to take us back to the 50's or earlier anyway, to a time before transfats, so I'm okay with banning them.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Little-Acorn said:


> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)



if you look at the labels one hell of a lot of products already do...they are on their way out anyway.....it was a useless move...

* saying they are a threat to Americans' health*

pretty dam Hypercritical...cigarettes are still legal.....


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
Click to expand...




			
				martybegan said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.



Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.


----------



## Sunshine

Use butter.  It's a lot better for you, and tastes better too!


----------



## Pogo

TakeAStepBack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
Click to expand...


By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition.  One of the basic food groups --- right?

I think the proper ironic emoticon is...


----------



## Sunshine

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...


What is a douche hack?  That sounds painful!  But the question is:  Does it have any trans fat?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.
Click to expand...


gee only Republicans are fat?....no fat-ass left wingers driving ins rates up?....


----------



## Zoom-boing

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...


^ Has no argument to counter marty, instead whines about his neg rep by posting it. 

Government takes away choice of keeping health insurance, takes away choice of purchasing trans fat.  Dems, the party of less choice!


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...


Using argumentum ad absurdum is not schooling anyone you dime store hack.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using argumentum ad absurdum is not schooling anyone you hack.
Click to expand...


Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.


----------



## Sunshine

TakeAStepBack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
Click to expand...


Look around your house.  There is not one thing in it that is not regulated.  Nothing.  Glass, plastic, wood, animal, vegetable, mineral.  Even the shit you flush.  That is Administrative Law.  While all you constitutional scholars are bemoaning things like guns and roses, the government is regulating your life into the ground.  

Here is a list of JUST the federal agencies.  This doesn't contain state, county, or city agencies.  The Executive branch of the government creates all these agencies and regulates your ass around in circles every day.  But, hey!  You can still own a gun!

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Pogo said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition.  One of the basic food groups --- right?
> 
> I think the proper ironic emoticon is...
Click to expand...


I'm thoroughly surprised that you missed the point.


----------



## Pogo

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a douche hack?  That sounds painful!  But the question is:  Does it have any trans fat?
Click to expand...


Douche hack... douche hack... I believe that would be an unlicensed taxi with a shower in it.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using argumentum ad absurdum is not schooling anyone you hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.
Click to expand...


That wasnt sarcasm, you were trying to make a point with exaggeration, and you failed miserably.

go run off and try to ban a 2 year old from getting a lolipop.


----------



## bendog

TakeAStepBack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
Click to expand...


I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.

however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.

That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Sunshine said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look around your house.  There is not one thing in it that is not regulated.  Nothing.  Glass, plastic, wood, animal, vegetable, mineral.  Even the shit you flush.  That is Administrative Law.  While all you constitutional scholars are bemoaning things like guns and roses, the government is regulating your life into the ground.
> 
> Here is a list of JUST the federal agencies.  This doesn't contain state, county, or city agencies.  The Executive branch of the government creates all these agencies and regulates your ass around in circles every day.  But, hey!  You can still own a gun!
Click to expand...


You'll get no disagreement from me on that. And one day I may need that gun to help thin the herd of Statist morons who love to tell me what to do. So there is that.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using argumentum ad absurdum is not schooling anyone you hack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasnt sarcasm, you were trying to make a point with exaggeration, and you failed miserably.
Click to expand...


Apparently not, if you reacted the way you did.

Embarrassed?  I would be too.  As I said, don't post stupid shit in the first place and you won't get mocked.

Tissue?


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasnt sarcasm, you were trying to make a point with exaggeration, and you failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently not, if you reacted the way you did.
> 
> Embarrassed?  I would be too.
Click to expand...


I called your ass on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hey!! someone is drinking a soda 1/2 an oz over 16 oz!!! Call the cops!!!


----------



## Sunshine

Pogo said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition.  One of the basic food groups --- right?
> 
> I think the proper ironic emoticon is...
Click to expand...


Why not?  Grapes are a food group.  If I weren't sitting here waiting on UPS to bring medicine I'd go buy a bottle and have them for supper!


----------



## Sunshine

bendog said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.
> 
> however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.
> 
> That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.
Click to expand...


Nothing will change.  Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.


----------



## bendog

Sunshine said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.
> 
> however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.
> 
> That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing will change.  Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.
Click to expand...


That's a very real possibility.  There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt.  Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.

Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage


----------



## Mac1958

.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are smarter than us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning know what's best for us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning care about us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are here to watch out for us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are here to take care of us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning must be obeyed without question.

.


----------



## kiwiman127

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.
Click to expand...


Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait.  I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.


----------



## Sunshine

bendog said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.
> 
> however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.
> 
> That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will change.  Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very real possibility.  There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt.  Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.
> 
> Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage
Click to expand...


It isn't a possibility.  It is a PROBABILITY.  We were taught that oleo is better for you than butter when in fact it is nothing but trans fat.  Butter is a natural fat that people have been ingesting for thousands of years.


----------



## Sunshine

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
> Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
> If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait.  I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.
Click to expand...


Bu...bu....bu.... it's the starving poor in America who are obese!


----------



## spirit_in_decay

Interpol said:


> Transfats are poison.
> 
> *America's obesity and diabetes scourge is costing several tens of billions of dollars a year.
> *
> Republicans always want to take us back to the 50's or earlier anyway, to a time before transfats, so I'm okay with banning them.



you would think with this statement right here, the government would want transfats in food, just to have americans spend more money on doctor visits, more money on medicine, and then more money back into the fast food markets, and then repeating the whole cycle.  I think a lot of pharmaceutical companies are in bed with fast food corporations.  I think that conspiracy is real.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bendog said:


> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.



There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.


----------



## bendog

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.


----------



## The Rabbi

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
> Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
> If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait.  I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad absurdum.  Classic fallacy.
Do you think banning trans fats will result in people being healthier?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bendog said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.
Click to expand...


And yet, as has already been proven, the market has come out with products with no trans-fat. So they're obviously competing, otherwise they wouldn't exist. The fact, however, is that foods that previously had trans-fat, and will now have some other nasty chemical instead, are still unhealthy for you. So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it? The important question here is where do you draw the line?


----------



## kiwiman127

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.
> 
> The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition.  One of the basic food groups --- right?
> 
> I think the proper ironic emoticon is...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  Grapes are a food group.  If I weren't sitting here waiting on UPS to bring medicine I'd go buy a bottle and have them for supper!
Click to expand...


I volunteer at Goodwill a half dozen times monthly and serve the poor food (Thanksgiving is my favorite).  It's pretty darn healthy food they are getting. I'm a health nut and I'd eat it. Sadly, there are days we run out of food.


----------



## The Rabbi

bendog said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.
Click to expand...


I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats.  There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
Trans fats are not detrimental to health.  eating lots of them over many years might be.  But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.


----------



## bendog

How The Food Industry Manipulates Taste Buds With 'Salt Sugar Fat' : The Salt : NPR


----------



## bendog

The Rabbi said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats.  There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
> Trans fats are not detrimental to health.  eating lots of them over many years might be.  But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.
Click to expand...


The market has proven ineffective in removing trans fats because MOST PACKAGED FOOD HAVE THEM.  I realize you don't think the govt should be able to override consumer choice even when the choice is proven to be detrimental to the health of the population.  Fine, take it to the ballot box.


----------



## Papageorgio

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



So make the choice not to eat them. No need to have government intervene.


----------



## kiwiman127

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
> Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
> If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait.  I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad absurdum.  Classic fallacy.
> Do you think banning trans fats will result in people being healthier?
Click to expand...


Yes.  My dad is a living example.  He had two heart attacks.  After the second one he actually stuck to the diet that that was recommended by the nutritionist. That was over ten years ago and he's going strong and his annual physical results have been great.  I believe in it 100%.


----------



## g5000

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it?



This is the crux of the biscuit, as they say.

The trans fat ban is capricious and erratic.


----------



## Sunshine

bendog said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats.  There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
> Trans fats are not detrimental to health.  eating lots of them over many years might be.  But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market has proven ineffective in removing trans fats because MOST PACKAGED FOOD HAVE THEM.  I realize you don't think the govt should be able to override consumer choice even when the choice is proven to be detrimental to the health of the population.  Fine, take it to the ballot box.
Click to expand...


And packaged food is what the welfare class easts.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bendog said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind.  There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better.  I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats.  There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
> Trans fats are not detrimental to health.  eating lots of them over many years might be.  But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market has proven ineffective in removing trans fats because MOST PACKAGED FOOD HAVE THEM.  I realize you don't think the govt should be able to override consumer choice even when the choice is proven to be detrimental to the health of the population.  Fine, take it to the ballot box.
Click to expand...


So is everything open for the government to ban or not ban? Or, in your words, open to the ballot box? I'll repeat the question I asked earlier, where do you draw the line?


----------



## bendog

g5000 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the biscuit, as they say.
> 
> The trans fat ban is capricious.
Click to expand...


no, you're comparing false equivalents.  Trans fats can be removed, and the result is a somewhat less appealing, but more healthy, food.  That's certainly not true for all foods, some of which are not as healthy.  For example, we might be better off all eating more fish, though that's probably not sustainable.  But, take out red meat twice a week for a soy substitute.  Maybe.  But that's not the same as altering what ingredients are in a product.

There might be a logical analogy if one proved that beef with anti-biotics was worse for you than anti-biotic free beef.  I believe this is an issue being studied.

There might be an anology with hormone free and regular milk.  But the health benefits of hormone free (assuming there are such) could be outweighed by the benefit of the lower cost of regular milk.  I assume trans fats make chips last longer, but I doubt there's any great econ cost in removing them.


----------



## Contumacious

Little-Acorn said:


> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)



Thanks to the FDA and Mayor Bloomberg I will be able to extend my life for another 50 years.

Left to my own devices I would have been dead.

BTW, is muff diving bad for me?

.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kiwiman127 said:


> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!



But since Americans are so fat that proves they ARE smart enough to...hold on....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

bendog said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the biscuit, as they say.
> 
> The trans fat ban is capricious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, you're comparing false equivalents.  Trans fats can be removed, and the result is a somewhat less appealing, but more healthy, food.  That's certainly not true for all foods, some of which are not as healthy.  For example, we might be better off all eating more fish, though that's probably not sustainable.  But, take out red meat twice a week for a soy substitute.  Maybe.  But that's not the same as altering what ingredients are in a product.
> 
> There might be a logical analogy if one proved that beef with anti-biotics was worse for you than anti-biotic free beef.  I believe this is an issue being studied.
> 
> There might be an anology with hormone free and regular milk.  But the health benefits of hormone free (assuming there are such) could be outweighed by the benefit of the lower cost of regular milk.  I assume trans fats make chips last longer, but I doubt there's any great econ cost in removing them.
Click to expand...


Purely speculation. Removing trans-fat will make foods healthier, all else remaining equal, but how likely is that? Not very I'd say.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Papageorgio said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So make the choice not to eat them. No need to have government intervene.
Click to expand...


No harm..


----------



## g5000

bendog said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the crux of the biscuit, as they say.
> 
> The trans fat ban is capricious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, you're comparing false equivalents.  Trans fats can be removed, and the result is a somewhat less appealing, but more healthy, food.  That's certainly not true for all foods, some of which are not as healthy.  For example, we might be better off all eating more fish, though that's probably not sustainable.  But, take out red meat twice a week for a soy substitute.  Maybe.  But that's not the same as altering what ingredients are in a product.
> 
> There might be a logical analogy if one proved that beef with anti-biotics was worse for you than anti-biotic free beef.  I believe this is an issue being studied.
> 
> There might be an anology with hormone free and regular milk.  But the health benefits of hormone free (assuming there are such) could be outweighed by the benefit of the lower cost of regular milk.  I assume trans fats make chips last longer, but I doubt there's any great econ cost in removing them.
Click to expand...


Has the FDA banned nicotine?  

Capricious and erratic.


----------



## Papageorgio

Zoom-boing said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice argumentum ad abusrdum. I shouldn't waste my time responding but:
> 
> How do all those actual poisions compare to something the human body is more than capable of digesting, but MAY cause increases in heart disease risks in some people?
> 
> Making someone put ingridents on a box is not banning the item.
> 
> Meat inspection for classification is paid by the industry and helps them, doesnt hurt them.
> 
> but keep being a pompous snarky jackass, it does you wonders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -912 reputation points from martybegan.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Argumentum ad absurdum, you fucking douche hack.
> 
> Regards,
> martybegan
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ Has no argument to counter marty, instead whines about his neg rep by posting it.
> 
> Government takes away choice of keeping health insurance, takes away choice of purchasing trans fat.  Dems, the party of less choice!
Click to expand...


Pogo got schooled and it is obvious to everyone how weak his argument is. 

I learned about trans fats long ago, I quit buying foods with trans fats in them. There are other foods I stay a way from. Educate yourself and don't rely on government.


----------



## Papageorgio

ClosedCaption said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So make the choice not to eat them. No need to have government intervene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harm..
Click to expand...


Lots of harm, everyone knows that government intervention hurts everyone. Look at cigarettes and other tobacco, the government lets this go on. Do you understand inhaling smoke into your lungs is bad? Why is there no ban? Money. 
So government doesn't give a fuck but not job liberals are blind.


----------



## RoadVirus

If i want to eat my way into a heart attack, that is my God-given right. At least i'll die enjoying the foods i love instead of eating some tasteless, government-supported piece of shit (Soylent Green perhaps?).


----------



## Vox

Sunshine said:


> Use butter.  It's a lot better for you, and tastes better too!



except it will be the next product to be banned. Like they did in NYC schools 

EXCLUSIVE: City Education Department cracking down on school kitchens? use of butter - NY Daily News


----------



## g5000

Has the FDA banned Twinkies?  Nope.

Has the FDA banned nicotine?  Nope.  Let's not piss off Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).

Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.

Has the FDA banned high fructose corn syrup?  Oh hell no!  Let's not piss off Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri!

I guess the trans fat lobby doesn't control an important state.

Capricious and erratic.


----------



## Vox

BTW, butter contraband in Norway is flourishing


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> Has the FDA banned Twinkies?  Nope.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nicotine?  Nope.  Let's not piss off Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and Georgia.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.
> 
> Has the FDA banned high fructose corn syrup?  Oh hell no!  Let's not piss off Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri!
> 
> I guess the trans fat lobby doesn't control an important state.
> 
> Capricious and erratic.



Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?


.


----------



## Vox

Contumacious said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the FDA banned Twinkies?  Nope.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nicotine?  Nope.  Let's not piss off Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and Georgia.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.
> 
> Has the FDA banned high fructose corn syrup?  Oh hell no!  Let's not piss off Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri!
> 
> I guess the trans fat lobby doesn't control an important state.
> 
> Capricious and erratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


you are. if they are available 

the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.

But don't even think to touch my butter 

I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.

People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.


----------



## Contumacious

Vox said:


> [
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> .



They will always be available.

Neither the free market nor its cousin, the black-market, will be fooled,

.

.


----------



## g5000

Contumacious said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the FDA banned Twinkies?  Nope.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nicotine?  Nope.  Let's not piss off Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and Georgia.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.
> 
> Has the FDA banned high fructose corn syrup?  Oh hell no!  Let's not piss off Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri!
> 
> I guess the trans fat lobby doesn't control an important state.
> 
> Capricious and erratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  As a Freeman, a Smith, a Jones, a Kowalski.  Whatever.

Knock yourself out with some nicotine, fats, HFCS, and Twinkies. No pun intended...


----------



## ClosedCaption

Papageorgio said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So make the choice not to eat them. No need to have government intervene.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No harm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of harm, everyone knows that government intervention hurts everyone. Look at cigarettes and other tobacco, the government lets this go on. Do you understand inhaling smoke into your lungs is bad? Why is there no ban? Money.
> So government doesn't give a fuck but not job liberals are blind.
Click to expand...


Uh ok, but still no harm


----------



## TemplarKormac

kiwiman127 said:


> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!



And since when is it the government's right to dictate our dietary habits? I'll bitch as much as I want about government excess if I need to. It's my right to do stupid things without so much as a peep from others, or from you. You take care of your body, and I'll take care of mine.

To borrow a phrase from the pro-choice contingent:

"STAY OUT OF MY BODY!"


----------



## Vox

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will always be available.
> 
> Neither the free market nor its cousin, the black-market, will be fooled,
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


nope. they are not available in the natural raw foods except natural trans fats, which include conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and vaccenic acid, which originate in the rumen of cattle and sheep ( but those are a miniscule amount present in milk and body fat of those animals).
The 99% of transfats consumed by an ordinary person originate from artificially constructed by the processed food industry as a side effect of partially hydrogenating unsaturated plant fats (generally vegetable oils). 

so if they are banned - there is absolutely no effect for the person who does not eat processed food ( unless the government regulation will be as idiotic as to include milk and steak)


----------



## bripat9643

bendog said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.
> 
> however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.
> 
> That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will change.  Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a very real possibility.  There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt.  Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.
> 
> Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage
Click to expand...


In other words, they made a potato chip that people like.  

That is so sinister!


----------



## Vox

bripat9643 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will change.  Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very real possibility.  There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt.  Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.
> 
> Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, they made a potato chip that people like.
> 
> That is so sinister!
Click to expand...


there is a lot of sinister in this. Potato chips were made for decades. Making them the way that you can't stop - is sinister.

BTW, so called diet soda products are actually the same way. it is better to consume the standard one, than the 0 calorie one, since the latter increases your appetite


----------



## ClosedCaption

The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.

So let's stop pretending that only the ignorant don't know.  America is the fattest nation because people DON'T KNOW.  Pretending like people will suddenly know flies in the face of facts and logic


----------



## daveman

bendog said:


> I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.


The left supports the right to choose...as long as you choose to do what they tell you to do.


----------



## TemplarKormac

ClosedCaption said:


> *The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.*



No... just read the nutrition label, Einstein.


----------



## g5000

ClosedCaption said:


> The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.
> 
> So let's stop pretending that only the ignorant don't know.  America is the fattest nation because people DON'T KNOW.  Pretending like people will suddenly know flies in the face of facts and logic



Everyone knows the effects of being a fatso, eating too much and not exercising enough.


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> And cigarettes are still legal.
> Government sure is smart.



Hmm..more like one has deeper pockets than another.


----------



## Sunshine

Contumacious said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the FDA and Mayor Bloomberg I will be able to extend my life for another 50 years.
> 
> Left to my own devices I would have been dead.
> 
> BTW, is muff diving bad for me?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That depends on what kind of powder is on the muff.


----------



## Sunshine

ClosedCaption said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since Americans are so fat that proves they ARE smart enough to...hold on....
Click to expand...


But the poor will not have as many processed products from which to make their selections!


----------



## Sunshine

Papageorgio said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Has no argument to counter marty, instead whines about his neg rep by posting it.
> 
> Government takes away choice of keeping health insurance, takes away choice of purchasing trans fat.  Dems, the party of less choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo got schooled and it is obvious to everyone how weak his argument is.
> 
> I learned about trans fats long ago, I quit buying foods with trans fats in them. There are other foods I stay a way from. Educate yourself and don't rely on government.
Click to expand...


Good luck with that one.


----------



## Mustang

g5000 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.
> 
> So let's stop pretending that only the ignorant don't know.  America is the fattest nation because people DON'T KNOW.  Pretending like people will suddenly know flies in the face of facts and logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows the effects of being a fatso, eating too much and not exercising enough.
Click to expand...


Limbaughism?


----------



## whitehall

The government has a steak (pardon the pun) in your personal nutrition when they offer "free" health care.     You will remain under government surveillance or an  armed IRS agent will be waiting to lock up your sorry unhealthy ass.


----------



## Jughead

I don't think there is any chance of this ban occurring anytime soon. At least I hope not.

It ironic that the FDA commissioner who commented on the proposed ban is named Margaret Hamburg. I will not deny that I do eat my fair share of hamburgers, and fries as well, probably more than my fair share. However, individuals should be able to decide for themselves what they want to eat. 

I'm wondering how the fast food restaurants will still be able to serve up burgers and fries without trans fat? I'll bet the result will be unedible food that tastes like cardboard. Realistically, it can't be done.


----------



## g5000

Jughead said:


> I'm wondering how the fast food restaurants will still be able to serve up burgers and fries without trans fat?



They have already eliminated trans fats.



Jughead said:


> I'll bet the result will be unedible food that tastes like cardboard. Realistically, it can't be done.



Since they already have, and you have not even noticed, then you are quite wrong.


----------



## Sunshine

Vox said:


> BTW, butter contraband in Norway is flourishing



Anyone with a pint of heavy cream and a mixer can make their own butter~!


----------



## Sunshine

Vox said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the FDA banned Twinkies?  Nope.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nicotine?  Nope.  Let's not piss off Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, and Georgia.
> 
> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.
> 
> Has the FDA banned high fructose corn syrup?  Oh hell no!  Let's not piss off Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri!
> 
> I guess the trans fat lobby doesn't control an important state.
> 
> Capricious and erratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
> and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.
> 
> But don't even think to touch my butter
> 
> I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.
> 
> People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.
Click to expand...


I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.


----------



## Contumacious

Sunshine said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the FDA and Mayor Bloomberg I will be able to extend my life for another 50 years.
> 
> Left to my own devices I would have been dead.
> 
> BTW, is muff diving bad for me?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends on what kind of powder is on the muff.
Click to expand...


She uses a French brand called "Le Puntange"

.


----------



## g5000

You can lose weight just by cutting soft drinks from your diet.

High fructose corn syrup!  NOT banned.

The FDA is capricious and erratic.


----------



## Seawytch

Sunshine said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
> and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.
> 
> But don't even think to touch my butter
> 
> I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.
> 
> People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
Click to expand...


So...you eliminated trans fats. Cool...


----------



## Seawytch

g5000 said:


> You can lose weight just by cutting soft drinks from your diet.
> 
> High fructose corn syrup!  NOT banned.
> 
> The FDA is capricious and erratic.



Still smelling like lobby money...


----------



## Vox

Sunshine said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, butter contraband in Norway is flourishing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a pint of heavy cream and a mixer can make their own butter~!
Click to expand...


I know, but people are LAZY


----------



## g5000

Seawytch said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lose weight just by cutting soft drinks from your diet.
> 
> High fructose corn syrup!  NOT banned.
> 
> The FDA is capricious and erratic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still smelling like lobby money...
Click to expand...


Of course it is lobby money.  That's why I listed all those states which would be affected by nicotine or nitrites or HFCS bans.  The poor trans fats bastards are out in the cold.


----------



## Vox

Sunshine said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I , as a FREEMAN, have a right to consume nitrites, sulfites, high fructose corn syrup, trans fats?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
> and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.
> 
> But don't even think to touch my butter
> 
> I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.
> 
> People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
Click to expand...

yes, I know. I gained 5 pounds immediately when started residency - with 80+ hours per week - because they were feeding us and the food was ... processed.


----------



## Jughead

g5000 said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how the fast food restaurants will still be able to serve up burgers and fries without trans fat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have already eliminated trans fats.
> 
> 
> 
> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet the result will be unedible food that tastes like cardboard. Realistically, it can't be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they already have, and you have not even noticed, then you are quite wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, I eat at Jack-In-The-Box quiet often, and I know that their food still has trans fat.


----------



## auditor0007

martybegan said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
Click to expand...


I find it humorous that you would worry about the FDA banning something that we all know is not good for anyone.  Most people do not look at all the ingredients on foods they buy, and since so many foods are processed and filled with junk, I have no problem with the FDA banning something that is know to be really bad for us.  

We should probably allow toy stores to sell toy guns that really work with real bullets and let parents decide if they want to buy them or not.


----------



## Sunshine

Vox said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
> and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.
> 
> But don't even think to touch my butter
> 
> I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.
> 
> People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, I know. I gained 5 pounds immediately when started residency - with 80+ hours per week - because they were feeding us and the food was ... processed.
Click to expand...


There is always food around hospitals and clinics.  I remember being house supervisor in a hospital and going from unit to unit foraging for food.  I never bought food in those days.  That was really good.  I remember one hospital where the nurses would have a fit if the doctors ate any food from their lounge because the doctors have their own lounge.  But I would sometimes give some to a very tired an harried resident who didn't have time to eat.


----------



## Contumacious

Sunshine said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I know. I gained 5 pounds immediately when started residency - with 80+ hours per week - because they were feeding us and the food was ... processed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is always food around hospitals and clinics.  I remember being house supervisor in a hospital and going from unit to unit foraging for food.  I never bought food in those days.  That was really good.  I remember one hospital where the nurses would have a fit if the doctors ate any food from their lounge because the doctors have their own lounge.  *But I would sometimes give some to a very tired an harried resident who didn't have time to eat*.
Click to expand...


Now I know who you are.

Thanks a million.

.


----------



## auditor0007

Vox said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are. if they are available
> 
> the regulation is mainly aimed at food industry.
> and since it has manipulated it's products in so many ways to make people addicted to packaged food, I am not sure I am too outraged.
> 
> But don't even think to touch my butter
> 
> I don't ever eat packaged food, except some chips sometimes when on-call and there is no time for anything else.
> 
> People should eat food prepared by themselves from raw products - it is healthy, CHEAP and tasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, I know. I gained 5 pounds immediately when started residency - with 80+ hours per week - because they were feeding us and the food was ... processed.
Click to expand...


It is difficult to get away from processed foods, but as much as possible, I try to eat food where I know all the ingredients and can pronounce all of them.


----------



## Vox

Sunshine said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have lost 15 pounds since I retired.  All I did was stop eating fast food and junk.  Nothing but good home cooked food for me.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, I know. I gained 5 pounds immediately when started residency - with 80+ hours per week - because they were feeding us and the food was ... processed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is always food around hospitals and clinics.  I remember being house supervisor in a hospital and going from unit to unit foraging for food.  I never bought food in those days.  That was really good.  I remember one hospital where the nurses would have a fit if the doctors ate any food from their lounge because the doctors have their own lounge.  But I would sometimes give some to a very tired an harried resident who didn't have time to eat.
Click to expand...


In the name of all residents present, past and future - THANK YOU. 

and yes, the availability of food in the hospitals is insane.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.
Click to expand...


Your avi is obviously a selfie...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Trans fats, like alcohol and a myriad of other things ingested, aren't inherently bad, they're bad if over-consumed.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Can the federal govt become more stupid than it already is?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



Then don't eat them, shit fer brains.

Daddy in Gubmint doesn't need to ban them for you try and act grown up.


----------



## spirit_in_decay

They're trying every day to out do themselves.  Ever see that movie Idiocracy?  I'm starting to think it's more a documentary about America's future.


----------



## Contumacious

LordBrownTrout said:


> Can the federal govt become more stupid than it already is?



Offfffffffffffffffffff course.

Give them time.

.


----------



## DiamondDave

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



It is up to you to ingest what you want or don't want in terms of health or for whatever other reason.. it is not the job of government


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mustang said:


> Perhaps you could lead the campaign to bring back lead paint.



I'm going to guess that the spray paint you huff does far more damage than lead paint ever did...


----------



## Uncensored2008

kiwiman127 said:


> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!



So, socialize medicine - they you have the right to impose totalitarian dictates on every aspect of life - since "we" are all paying for it...

Gee, who saw this fucking shit coming?


----------



## DiamondDave

5 Foods That Could Become Illegal With FDA Move to Ban Trans Fats - Yahoo


----------



## Contumacious

Uncensored2008 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat.  Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
> Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, socialize medicine - they you have the right to impose totalitarian dictates on every aspect of life - since "we" are all paying for it...
> 
> Gee, who saw this fucking shit coming?
Click to expand...


Founding Fathers and the Libertarians in 1971. Why?

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Next up: Artificial sweeteners.

Bank on it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Contumacious said:


> Founding Fathers and the Libertarians in 1971. Why?
> 
> .



And the Tea Party in 2008....


----------



## martybegan

auditor0007 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it humorous that you would worry about the FDA banning something that we all know is not good for anyone.  Most people do not look at all the ingredients on foods they buy, and since so many foods are processed and filled with junk, I have no problem with the FDA banning something that is know to be really bad for us.
> 
> We should probably allow toy stores to sell toy guns that really work with real bullets and let parents decide if they want to buy them or not.
Click to expand...


It MIGHT be bad for SOME people is consumed in LARGE amounts. 

But lets ban something! what the hell! its only our freedom we are giving up.

Again, lemmings.


----------



## Vox

My dear brethren on the right.
I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.

Same is here.

And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
And ethanol in the gas.

those components are not the God given natural rights.


----------



## Mustang

le





Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
Click to expand...


And what's up with those ridiculous child proof caps on medicine and cleaning product bottles?


----------



## Mac1958

Uncensored2008 said:


> Next up: Artificial sweeteners.
> 
> Bank on it.




Donuts, mayo, ice cream, sour cream, so much more.

Thank goodness our great "leaders" are here to take care of us.

That's what they're there for, right?

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vox said:


> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.



Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.

Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.


----------



## Contumacious

Vox said:


> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". *Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.*
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.



My confused opponent.

Americans have a right to eat dog shit if they so desired.

read the fucking 9th Amendment.

It has NOTHING to do with nutrition or health is freedom of choice.

.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Vox said:


> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.



Actually, they are. Self-ownership dictates that you may ingest whatever you like so long as it does not involve violence against others. Choosing to eat trans-fats does not infringe on the rights of anybody else, and selling them doesn't either as you're not forcing anybody to buy them.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Uncensored2008 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't eat them, shit fer brains.
> 
> Daddy in Gubmint doesn't need to ban them for you try and act grown up.
Click to expand...


They can't think for themselves. Come on.  They need to be told and led around by the nose.


----------



## Jarlaxle

bendog said:


> Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice.  You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat.  So your market option is to not eat them.  The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat.  There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat.  And they do add to cholesterol.  Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.



No, that's wrong.  The largest chip company (Frito-Lay) in the country uses no trans fats!


----------



## Pogo

Seawytch said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And cigarettes are still legal.
> Government sure is smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm..more like one has deeper pockets than another.
Click to expand...


Bingo-roonie.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Corn syrup is worse...


----------



## Jarlaxle

g5000 said:


> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.



Forget the meatpacking industry: most WINES contain sulfites!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Jughead said:


> I don't think there is any chance of this ban occurring anytime soon. At least I hope not.
> 
> It ironic that the FDA commissioner who commented on the proposed ban is named Margaret Hamburg. I will not deny that I do eat my fair share of hamburgers, and fries as well, probably more than my fair share. However, individuals should be able to decide for themselves what they want to eat.
> 
> I'm wondering how the fast food restaurants will still be able to serve up burgers and fries without trans fat? I'll bet the result will be unedible food that tastes like cardboard. Realistically, it can't be done.



It can and has!  Offhand, Five Guys has never used trans-fats!  When Wendy's dropped then, their fries improved dramatically.


----------



## Black_Label

Bring back asbestos and lead paint! Vote GOP!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Mustang said:


> le
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then convince people not to buy products with them, dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> I swear all progressive nanny-statists think we are all a bunch of fucking lemmings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Let's open the gates for arsenic and insecticides and diethylene glycol and e coli and salmonella and hell, let's toss narcotics in too.  Let's find out what we've been missing.  Expiration dates?  Who needs 'em.  Ingredients?  Why would we not trust Big Food?  What could _possibly _go wrong?  Damn meat inspectors.  Let the consumer take his chance.  Then there's municipal water works-- what a waste of money.
> 
> Seriously, some of y'all cram your head WAY up your ass in the name of blind ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's up with those ridiculous child proof caps on medicine and cleaning product bottles?
Click to expand...


You mean the ones that once had my grandmother attacking a bottle with a tack hammer so she could take her arthritis medication?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Black_Label said:


> Bright back asbestos and lead paint! Vote GOP!



Dude...you have NO IDEA how much I wish I could still get asbestos-based welding gear, exhaust wrap, and heat barrier!  When asbestos was banned, my uncle bought about 50 pairs of gloves, a dozen aprons, half a dozen helmets, and fifty rolls of heat wrap, because he KNEW the replacements would suck rocks!  (Note: they did!) Forty years (and untold billions of R&D dollars later), the new stuff is _almost_ as good.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't like getting schooled, don't post stupid shit in the first place.  Not rocket surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Has no argument to counter marty, instead whines about his neg rep by posting it.
> 
> Government takes away choice of keeping health insurance, takes away choice of purchasing trans fat.  Dems, the party of less choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo got schooled and it is obvious to everyone how weak his argument is.
> 
> I learned about trans fats long ago, I quit buying foods with trans fats in them. There are other foods I stay a way from. Educate yourself and don't rely on government.
Click to expand...


Oh Burgundy please.  I didn't make an "argument" -- I _satirized _the one that was sitting there.  I showed how fucking silly it is, and Marty wet his pants over it.  He's embarrassed, as he should be.  And since he can't think of a response, he negs.

Here's the delicious irony -
These rhetorical hillbillies going out to shoot their revenooers, bawling their eyes out about the big bad gummamint jumping in telling Big Snack what to do --- are also the first ones to jump in to stifle any dissent to their wacko conspiracy theories by throwing negs.  Doesn't get more flamingly hypocritical than that.

The FDA is there for a reason, and it barely does its job as it is; most of the developed nations in the world protect their citizens better than we do.

But by all means, be my jest -- wipe out all regulation, then go ahead and eat chicken that never got inspected for salmonella.  Take that drug that hasn't passed approval.  If you survive that, send Big Food and Big Pharma a letter assuring them that you stood up for their right to poison, per the Constitution.  Oh wait, you can't send a letter, that would require the gummamint postal service, so you'll have to go take a plane -- once we get rid of the fascist FAA telling planes where to land and btw that plane won't have radio contact because we got rid of the FCC too.  And I'm afraid you'll have to walk from the airport, because the roads are gummamint-funded.

That's life in the world of Randbot parrots.  You're welcome to it.  But at least you'll have your principles, right? 


Btw I defy _anyone _to tell me what benefit they've been deriving from trans fats that the big bad gummamint is going to deprive them of.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is any chance of this ban occurring anytime soon. At least I hope not.
> 
> It ironic that the FDA commissioner who commented on the proposed ban is named Margaret Hamburg. I will not deny that I do eat my fair share of hamburgers, and fries as well, probably more than my fair share. However, individuals should be able to decide for themselves what they want to eat.
> 
> I'm wondering how the fast food restaurants will still be able to serve up burgers and fries without trans fat? I'll bet the result will be unedible food that tastes like cardboard. Realistically, it can't be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can and has!  Offhand, Five Guys has never used trans-fats!  When Wendy's dropped then, their fries improved dramatically.
Click to expand...


Methinks there's a bunch of yahoos here sputtering about transfats --- and don't even know what it is they're talking about.  They just know some gummamint reggleaturry outfit did its job, and by god we can't stand for that.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't eat them, shit fer brains.
> 
> Daddy in Gubmint doesn't need to ban them for you try and act grown up.
Click to expand...


-- because the fact that he knows that means that _everybody _knows that.  Right?

What benefit do _you_ get from trans fats, Pothead?  What will you be deprived of?
If it's blood flow to the synapses I'm afraid it's too late...


----------



## Wacky Quacky

I have no problem admitting it, Americans *ARE* too stupid to take care of themselves. Our current health issues are a glaring admission to that fact.

But in the area of bans, there are many other culprits I would go after before I even cared about trans fats.

We do have the freedom to ingest anything we want, but doctors and insurance companies should be charging people through the nose for those choices. 

You eat fast food? We're going to charge you more.
You eat processed foods? We're going to charge you more.
You don't exercise regularly? We're going to charge you more.


----------



## Katzndogz

Trans fats are used as a preservative.  You will still get what you want.  It will just be full of maggots.  Then a government funded study will come out saying maggots are good for you.


----------



## Jarlaxle

You REALLY need to dial back the Schedule 1 drugs, Katz!


----------



## Pogo

Katzndogz said:


> Trans fats are used as a preservative.




So is formaldehyde.  Doesn't mean I'm going to sprinkle formaldehyde on my hummus.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... just read the nutrition label, Einstein.
Click to expand...


 -- a label which only exists because that same big bad gummamint says it must.

Duh.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... just read the nutrition label, Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- a label which only appears there because that same big bad gummamint says it must.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...



And just think about how much it costs the company to print that on the package. Gosh! That's a cost that they'll just pass on to us the consumers.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Civilization is about high standards and rights. Something some of you conservatives would take away from people.


----------



## Vox

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
Click to expand...


I wrote above about 2  just two) of the naturally occurring transfats and instead of having a fit over transfats in general it would be advisable to actually see the text of proposed regulation in order to address the potential harm in particular, not in general.
Knowing the idiocy of this administration I won't be surprised if milk and dairy products plus meats from cattle and sheep will be included.


----------



## Pogo

Wacky Quacky said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... just read the nutrition label, Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- a label which only appears there because that same big bad gummamint says it must.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just think about how much it costs the company to print that on the package. Gosh! That's a cost that they'll just pass on to us the consumers.
Click to expand...




Drams and drams of printer ink....


Actually they'd end up spending more without those labels -- that empty space would be promptly filled up with multicolor advertising splash.  So the FDA is saving us money by requiring that plain black list of nutrition info.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



My body my choice.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
Click to expand...


Bloody pedant.


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bloody pedant.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're getting owned in this thread too? 

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote above about 2  just two) of the naturally occurring transfats and instead of having a fit over transfats in general it would be advisable to actually see the text of proposed regulation in order to address the potential harm in particular, not in general.
> Knowing the idiocy of this administration I won't be surprised if milk and dairy products plus meats from cattle and sheep will be included.
Click to expand...


The article in the OP specifically clarifies:

>> The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products. <<

You gotta remember who you're talking to -- a poster who sees Pol Pot behind every post.  Not the most stable egg in the carton if you know what I'm saying...


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloody pedant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're getting owned in this thread too?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


"Owned" like I own your bogus Putin quote?


----------



## Vox

Contumacious said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". *Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.*
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My confused opponent.
> 
> Americans have a right to eat dog shit if they so desired.
> 
> read the fucking 9th Amendment.
> 
> It has NOTHING to do with nutrition or health is freedom of choice.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


they can eat whatever they want.

that does not mean the producers of the food can use whatever components they  want and then sell it for profit 

You understand the difference, do you? 

if you like trans fats, you can produce them in your kitchen


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://youtu.be/nrvpZxMfKaU]John Adams - Declaration of Independence - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trans-fats are naturally occurring in meats and some cheeses. No doubt our rulers will outlaw meat consumption, using this as a basis.
> 
> Note to Margret Hamburg, get your jack boot off my neck, you stinking ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote above about 2  just two) of the naturally occurring transfats and instead of having a fit over transfats in general it would be advisable to actually see the text of proposed regulation in order to address the potential harm in particular, not in general.
> Knowing the idiocy of this administration I won't be surprised if milk and dairy products plus meats from cattle and sheep will be included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article in the OP specifically clarifies:
> 
> >> The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products. <<
> 
> You gotta remember who you're talking to -- a poster who sees Pol Pot behind every post.  Not the most stable egg in the carton if you know what I'm saying...
Click to expand...


good.

my cream for the coffee is safe.


----------



## Vox

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are. Self-ownership dictates that you may ingest whatever you like so long as it does not involve violence against others. Choosing to eat trans-fats does not infringe on the rights of anybody else, and selling them doesn't either as you're not forcing anybody to buy them.
Click to expand...


you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.

But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.

It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?


----------



## Darkwind

Contumacious said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the FDA and Mayor Bloomberg I will be able to extend my life for another 50 years.
> 
> Left to my own devices I would have been dead.
> 
> BTW, is muff diving bad for me?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Only if you're doing a trans-fatty!


Sorry peeps....I simply could not help Myself....


----------



## daveman

LordBrownTrout said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't eat them, shit fer brains.
> 
> Daddy in Gubmint doesn't need to ban them for you try and act grown up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't think for themselves. Come on.  They need to be told and led around by the nose.
Click to expand...


----------



## Darkwind

ClosedCaption said:


> The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.
> 
> So let's stop pretending that only the ignorant don't know.  America is the fattest nation because people DON'T KNOW.  Pretending like people will suddenly know flies in the face of facts and logic


Public education at its finest.....

When public education teams up with parents to teach healthy eating, then there won't be a need for oppressive government, will there?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Vox said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear brethren on the right.
> I think you are grossly overestimating the validity of this "attack on our stomach rights". Trans fats are artificially synthesized by food industry and their regulation has nothing to do with the basic freedoms of the Americans.
> It is the same as regulation by FDA which preservatives can be added to the famous drug propofol.
> yes, they differ,and they changed several times.
> Nobody, except the ones involved, ever noticed.
> 
> Same is here.
> 
> And, honestly, I would be extremely happy if high fructose syrup would be banned as well.
> And ethanol in the gas.
> 
> those components are not the God given natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are. Self-ownership dictates that you may ingest whatever you like so long as it does not involve violence against others. Choosing to eat trans-fats does not infringe on the rights of anybody else, and selling them doesn't either as you're not forcing anybody to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
Click to expand...


An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.

As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.


----------



## Pogo

Darkwind said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, the American citizen, have just been ruled incapable of making the right decisions on what to cook and what to eat.
> 
> The government will now make those decisions for you. For your own good.
> 
> Why the government is more qualified than you are, has not been explained.
> 
> As the article describes, if there's something you want to put in your food, you'll have to petition the government for permission. The article notes that such petition will likely not be approved.
> 
> Move along.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
> 
> FDA to ban artery-clogging trans fats
> 
> Posted: Nov 07, 2013 9:45 AM PST
> Updated: Nov 07, 2013 9:48 AM PST
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S., Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday it will require the food industry to gradually phase out artificial trans fats, saying they are a threat to Americans' health. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the move could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths each year.
> 
> Hamburg said that while the amount of trans fats in the country's diet has declined dramatically in the last decade, they "remain an area of significant public health concern." The trans fats have long been criticized by nutritionists, and New York City and other local governments have banned them.
> 
> Though they have been removed from many items, the fats are still found in processed foods, including in some microwave popcorns and frozen pizzas, refrigerated doughs, cookies, biscuits and ready-to-use frostings. They are also sometimes used by restaurants that use the fats for frying. Many larger chains have phased them out, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
> 
> To phase them out, the FDA said it had made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them *would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it, and that would likely not be approved.*
> 
> 
> (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the FDA and Mayor Bloomberg I will be able to extend my life for another 50 years.
> 
> Left to my own devices I would have been dead.
> 
> BTW, is muff diving bad for me?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you're doing a trans-fatty!
> 
> 
> Sorry peeps....I simply could not help Myself....
Click to expand...


Oooooh, no you di'int...

Where's NovaSteve when we need him?


----------



## Vox

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are. Self-ownership dictates that you may ingest whatever you like so long as it does not involve violence against others. Choosing to eat trans-fats does not infringe on the rights of anybody else, and selling them doesn't either as you're not forcing anybody to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
Click to expand...


you can be opposed to whatever you want, but government regulating BUSINESS is here to stay.
and actually it was ALWAYS there. we can discuss and change the boundaries of regulations, effectiveness, but it is not ever going away totally.

Even if "the government " was represented by some monarch's vassals.


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bloody pedant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're getting owned in this thread too?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Owned" like I own your bogus Putin quote?
Click to expand...


And Putin owns Obama, so what's your point?

-Geaux


----------



## bigrebnc1775

obama says the sheeple need to be sheered.


----------



## Pogo

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they are. Self-ownership dictates that you may ingest whatever you like so long as it does not involve violence against others. Choosing to eat trans-fats does not infringe on the rights of anybody else, and selling them doesn't either as you're not forcing anybody to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
Click to expand...


"Violence"?  In what comic book?

When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?

And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?

Seriously, dood...


----------



## ScienceRocks

Pogo said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Violence"?  In what comic book?
> 
> When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
> When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
> Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?
> 
> And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?
> 
> Seriously, dood...
Click to expand...


These people hate government and everything it does. If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!

To hell with that poison in that met
To hell with that plane flying to low
To hell with that hurricane hitting the coast. You little guy should learn how to read the wid!


----------



## Political Junky

I read labels and haven't eaten trans fats or high fructose corn syrup for years.


----------



## Political Junky

Matthew said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Violence"?  In what comic book?
> 
> When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
> When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
> Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?
> 
> And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?
> 
> Seriously, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people hate government and everything it does.* If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!*
> 
> To hell with that poison in that met
> To hell with that plane flying to low
> To hell with that hurricane hitting the coast. You little guy should learn how to read the wid!
Click to expand...

True


----------



## Pogo

Political Junky said:


> I read labels and haven't eaten trans fats or high fructose corn syrup for years.



We try.  But they go under a lot of aliases.


----------



## Politico

ClosedCaption said:


> The only way for the average person to know what's being put into foods is to be a nutritionist and scientist.  The average person just knows it tastes good and doesn't know it's effects.
> 
> So let's stop pretending that only the ignorant don't know.  America is the fattest nation because people DON'T KNOW.  Pretending like people will suddenly know flies in the face of facts and logic



Sure it's easy to know. Prepare what you eat. Don't buy crap out of a box. Especially if it takes 20 steps to make whatever is in it. And on the occasion that you need to read the fucking label. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say hay dimethylpolysiloxane is probably not good for me.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Vox said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can be opposed to whatever you want, but government regulating BUSINESS is here to stay.
> and actually it was ALWAYS there. we can discuss and change the boundaries of regulations, effectiveness, but it is not ever going away totally.
> 
> Even if "the government " was represented by some monarch's vassals.
Click to expand...


Then where do you draw the line, and why?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.


He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour 
He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
He is anti-government.

His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Pogo said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can ingest as many trans fats as you can, when you prepare them on your stove.
> 
> But that does not mean the food industry can not be mandated to replace them in the food they are making as a business, because of the proven harm to the human health.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if there was the same "my rights" resistance to airbags and safety belts in the cars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Violence"?  In what comic book?
> 
> When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
> When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
> Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?
> 
> And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?
> 
> Seriously, dood...
Click to expand...


Every act of government is essentially a threat to use violence against the lives and property of the people. What happens when government mandates are disobeyed?

As for "poison," what exactly do you think is left in these foods even after trans-fats are removed? Are cookies suddenly going to become health foods? And what of government's beloved grains in general, the base of the food pyramid? Among the worst foods anybody could possibly eat. If the argument is that there is no right to ingest or sell unhealthy food on the basis that it's "poison," despite the fact that people voluntarily choose to do both with no violence employed whatsoever, then simply banning trans-fats isn't going far enough. Chips, cookies, candy bars, pop, grains of all varieties, and so much else just simply needs to be banned outright.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Matthew said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Violence"?  In what comic book?
> 
> When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
> When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
> Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?
> 
> And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?
> 
> Seriously, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people hate government and everything it does. If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!
> 
> To hell with that poison in that met
> To hell with that plane flying to low
> To hell with that hurricane hitting the coast. You little guy should learn how to read the wid!
Click to expand...


Right, because Mexico has no government at all.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Pogo said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read labels and haven't eaten trans fats or high fructose corn syrup for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We try.  But they go under a lot of aliases.
Click to expand...


It's not that hard, actually.


----------



## Mac1958

Matthew said:


> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.




Wow, a whole slate of simplistic, intellecually dishonest straw men.

Sure would be nice if people appreciated the term "slave" and stopped using it at the drop of a hat.



.


----------



## daveman

Matthew said:


> These people hate government and everything it does. If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!



Mindlessly repeating progressive dogma doesn't cement your "moderate" credentials.

Just sayin'.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daveman said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people hate government and everything it does. If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating progressive dogma doesn't cement your "moderate" credentials.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


indeed.


----------



## daveman

Matthew said:


> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.


"Moderate" my ass.


----------



## daveman

Mac1958 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, a whole slate of simplistic, intellecually dishonest straw men.
> 
> Sure would be nice if people appreciated the term "slave" and stopped using it at the drop of a hat.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Like "torture" and "racist", the left has devalued it to the point of meaninglessness.


----------



## ScienceRocks

daveman said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> "Moderate" my ass.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what would happen if you got the government totally out of the economy.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*But back to the trans fat issue.  

In time all truths are revealed.  

We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*


----------



## Mac1958

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*





So cigarettes have been banned?

Must have missed that one.

.


----------



## daveman

Matthew said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.
> 
> 
> 
> "Moderate" my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly what would happen if you got the government totally out of the economy.
Click to expand...

Good thing no one but anarchists are calling for that, huh?

Conservatives believe in reasonable restrictions.  We breath air and drink water, too.  We don't want to own slaves.  We don't want to force children to work.  

Everything you said is a lie.  Here's a little hint:  If a progressive tells you something about the TEA Party or conservatives in general, there's an excellent chance he's lying.

Don't believe him.  And don't repeat what he says, because it just makes you look stupid.


----------



## DiamondDave

Black_Label said:


> Bring back asbestos and lead paint! Vote GOP!



 We are here to protect you from every last little thing in this evil evil evil world.. so stop thinking and just let us take care of everything

- Progressives


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Mac1958 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So cigarettes have been banned?
> 
> Must have missed that one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*Practically.  Try lighting up next time you're.....anywhere..... except your own house.

Frankly, it's OK with me if trans fat is banned, because obviously Americans aren't smart enough to realize that they are fatter and unhealthier than ever before.  

I don't smoke, I'm at the right weight, I exercise regularly and have no health problems.  I really don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity.  If my tax dollars go to health care then let it be for kids with cancer or the very old, the mentally ill so they can't get their hands on guns.  Not morbidly obese smokers.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*



How long did Ronald Reagan live?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So cigarettes have been banned?
> 
> Must have missed that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Practically.  Try lighting up next time you're.....anywhere..... except your own house.
> 
> Frankly, it's OK with me if trans fat is banned, because obviously Americans aren't smart enough to realize that they are fatter and unhealthier than ever before.
> 
> I don't smoke, I'm at the right weight, I exercise regularly and have no health problems.  I really don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity.  If my tax dollars go to health care then let it be for kids with cancer or the very old, the mentally ill so they can't get their hands on guns.  Not morbidly obese smokers.*
Click to expand...

I don't smoke but work around a bunch of smokers, doesn't bother me one bit it's their right and I support it.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long did Ronald Reagan live?
Click to expand...

*
Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.

P.S.  He wasn't a smoker.  He just played one on television.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

bigrebnc1775 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cigarettes have been banned?
> 
> Must have missed that one.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Practically.  Try lighting up next time you're.....anywhere..... except your own house.
> 
> Frankly, it's OK with me if trans fat is banned, because obviously Americans aren't smart enough to realize that they are fatter and unhealthier than ever before.
> 
> I don't smoke, I'm at the right weight, I exercise regularly and have no health problems.  I really don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity.  If my tax dollars go to health care then let it be for kids with cancer or the very old, the mentally ill so they can't get their hands on guns.  Not morbidly obese smokers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't smoke but work around a bunch of smokers, doesn't bother me one bit it's their right and I support it.
Click to expand...


*
Fine, let them pee in your water bottle too.  *


----------



## jon_berzerk

novasteve said:


> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass



trans fat another item to be listed 

on the black market top ten list 

of profitable smuggling items 

--LOL

out of control run a muck big government 

is a wondrous thing to behold


----------



## paulitician

Another day, another ban. Oh well, such is life in the Police State.


----------



## DiamondDave

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized


----------



## ClosedCaption

DiamondDave said:


> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized



If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful


----------



## LordBrownTrout

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So cigarettes have been banned?
> 
> Must have missed that one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Practically.  Try lighting up next time you're.....anywhere..... except your own house.
> 
> Frankly, it's OK with me if trans fat is banned, because obviously Americans aren't smart enough to realize that they are fatter and unhealthier than ever before.
> 
> I don't smoke, I'm at the right weight, I exercise regularly and have no health problems.  I really don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity.  If my tax dollars go to health care then let it be for kids with cancer or the very old, the mentally ill so they can't get their hands on guns.  Not morbidly obese smokers.*
Click to expand...


And then again, it's really no one's business what someone else eats.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

ClosedCaption said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
Click to expand...


Progressives tried that already.  It was called prohibition and it failed.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

ClosedCaption said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
Click to expand...


*Exactly.  The big tobacco companies had their "experts" lie to Congress about the safety of nicotine and that it was NOT addictive.  Anybody remember that?  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkcHW_w114]Nicotine is not addictive - www.logicalscience.com - YouTube[/ame]



So if trans fats are found to be that dangerous, then get it away from our food manufacturers since they won't do it themselves.  This is what gov't is supposed to do....protect its citizens.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> -- because the fact that he knows that means that _everybody _knows that.  Right?
> 
> What benefit do _you_ get from trans fats, Pothead?



As always, without logical fallacy, you'd never approach logic.



> What will you be deprived of?
> If it's blood flow to the synapses I'm afraid it's too late...



If they ban speech the government feels inappropriate, only those who use inappropriate speech will be affected - so why should anyone object?

Pol Pot would be extra-proud of you today, possum boi....


----------



## DiamondDave

ClosedCaption said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
Click to expand...


Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.

Jesus Christ on a cracker...

The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing

If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wacky Quacky said:


> I have no problem admitting it, Americans *ARE* too stupid to take care of themselves. Our current health issues are a glaring admission to that fact.
> 
> But in the area of bans, there are many other culprits I would go after before I even cared about trans fats.
> 
> We do have the freedom to ingest anything we want, but doctors and insurance companies should be charging people through the nose for those choices.
> 
> You eat fast food? We're going to charge you more.
> You eat processed foods? We're going to charge you more.
> You don't exercise regularly? We're going to charge you more.



Maybe we can set up video conferencing systems in every home, and state enforcers can ensure that each person starts the day with exercise?

Winston Smith, you are not exercising with enough vigor, increase your effort......

Dare to dream my Obamunist friends, dare to dream...


----------



## LordBrownTrout

DiamondDave said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker...
> 
> The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing
> 
> If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..
Click to expand...



They have to be led around by the nose.


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
Click to expand...


Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My body my choice.
Click to expand...


ONLY if you're ripping the arms and legs off of someone else's body...

Choice doesn't mean choice, choice means abortion, and ONLY abortion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Geaux4it said:


> Wow, you're getting owned in this thread too?
> 
> -Geaux



Wherever Pogo goes, Pogo is there....


----------



## bripat9643

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*



ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My body my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONLY if you're ripping the arms and legs off of someone else's body...
> 
> Choice doesn't mean choice, choice means abortion, and ONLY abortion.
Click to expand...


I'm an adult and no son of a bitch is going to dictate to me how I live my life, what I eat how much I sleep what I wear what I drink or what I do. It's my life and no one I mean no one is going to control me.


----------



## paulitician

Boo Food Gestapo!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

paulitician said:


> Boo Food Gestapo!



bloomberg would head the department


----------



## Uncensored2008

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm an adult and no son of a bitch is going to dictate to me how I live my life, what I eat how much I sleep what I wear what I drink or what I do. It's my life and no one I mean no one is going to control me.



Our rulers disagree, and already dictate what you may or may not ingest.

And this is stupid, stupid in the way only totalitarian leftists can be: sit down and eat a whole bag of Soft Batch cookies in a single sitting and you have FAR more to worry about than the trans-fat. The carbs and refined sugar will do ten fold the damage to your body. 


But our rulers know best - obey without question.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an adult and no son of a bitch is going to dictate to me how I live my life, what I eat how much I sleep what I wear what I drink or what I do. It's my life and no one I mean no one is going to control me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our rulers disagree, and already dictate what you may or may not ingest.
> 
> And this is stupid, stupid in the way only totalitarian leftists can be: sit down and eat a whole bag of Soft Batch cookies in a single sitting and you have FAR more to worry about than the trans-fat. The carbs and refined sugar will do ten fold the damage to your body.
> 
> 
> But our rulers know best - obey without question.
Click to expand...


They may dictate but I don't obey


----------



## bripat9643

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long did Ronald Reagan live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.
> 
> P.S.  He wasn't a smoker.  He just played one on television.*
Click to expand...


Communist turds like you are the only ones who call it "trickle down," and I seem to remember the economy growing at rates of over 9% per quarter during Reagan administration.  How fast is it growing now?  Who's damaging it?

"Establishing a base for the plutocracy" is liberal code for "stop looting people who work hard."


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

bripat9643 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?
Click to expand...


*You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.  

Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)

It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:

Abstract
Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.


Read more, post less.  
*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long did Ronald Reagan live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.
> 
> P.S.  He wasn't a smoker.  He just played one on television.*
Click to expand...


oh really and how old are you? 40? 35? I'm a living historian from Nixon to now, IO experienced it so you lie.


----------



## Moonglow

My doc told me to steer clear of trans fats also.


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
Click to expand...


No It IS harmful open a book sometime


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
Click to expand...


Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

bripat9643 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long did Ronald Reagan live?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.
> 
> P.S.  He wasn't a smoker.  He just played one on television.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communist turds like you are the only ones who call it "trickle down," and I seem to remember the economy growing at rates of over 9% per quarter during Reagan administration.  How fast is it growing now?  Who's damaging it?
> 
> "Establishing a base for the plutocracy" is liberal code for "stop looting people who work hard."
Click to expand...


*I don't know if you've noticed, but movements and new policies take several years to gain momentum, especially in large economies.  Reagan's policies started to kick in in the early 1990s when the country started to feel the effects of millions of jobs going overseas.  Nothing tricked down, it just went out. *


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"
Click to expand...


You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that


----------



## bripat9643

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
Click to expand...


So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Slacker said:


> Quote: "While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern," ...
> 
> Once again I have to ask WHY? Why does the government feel it needs to ban something? Look at the first half of that quote. An informed public and the free market are working yet the government still wants to ban trans fats. By the logic they use (trans fats ..."remain an area of significant public health concern") then why don't they ban cigarettes? Our government is ban happy.



They have to justify their existence and wasting of our tax dollars somehow.


----------



## Contumacious

Moonglow said:


> My doc told me to steer clear of trans fats also.



What did your doctor say about tyranny, is is also bad for your health?

How about the federal government's foreign policy, is it bad for our health? Ask the relatives of the 3000 who did on 09/11.

How about the massive domestic paramilitary force, is it bad for our health? Ask the surviving Davidians.

.


----------



## bripat9643

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.
> 
> P.S.  He wasn't a smoker.  He just played one on television.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communist turds like you are the only ones who call it "trickle down," and I seem to remember the economy growing at rates of over 9% per quarter during Reagan administration.  How fast is it growing now?  Who's damaging it?
> 
> "Establishing a base for the plutocracy" is liberal code for "stop looting people who work hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't know if you've noticed, but movements and new policies take several years to gain momentum, especially in large economies.  Reagan's policies started to kick in in the early 1990s when the country started to feel the effects of millions of jobs going overseas.  Nothing tricked down, it just went out. *
Click to expand...


What policy of Reagan's caused any jobs to go overseas?  One thing I've noticed is that liberals pull their economic theories out of their ass.  They don't know the slightest thing about real economics.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
Click to expand...


Then you don't have to eat it.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others. 

I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?


----------



## paulitician

This is only the beginning. Soon, Obama and his IRS Henchmen will be dictating what your diet will be. Better get on that Obamacare folks. The IRS is watchin.


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that
Click to expand...


I've read plenty of studies in general, I don't blindy trust them the way progressive lemmings such as yourself tend to do.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
Click to expand...


You're actually trying to equate trans fats with _freedom of religion_?

Are you completely insane??

Marty, you're playing this intp way WAY more than it is in the cause of Randian blind ideology.  All the FDA is doing is proposing to remove trans fats from the GRAS list.  *ALL* of the additives in your food had to make the GRAS (Generally Recognizes as Safe) list.  That is *nothing* new, and considering crap (such as Aspartame) that have already gotten _*through *_that filter due to lobby money and the DC revolving door, FDA doesn't do enough.

Again, you're trying to stand up for Big Food's "right" to poison its product.  That is insane.  No such right *exists*.  You can sell whatever food product you can come up with; you don't have the right to make it toxic.

Is _this _what you want for us, just so you can prostrate yourself before the holy Ayn Rand?
How Aspartame became legal

Equating freedom of religion with freedom to inject foods with trans fats... unbelievable


----------



## ClosedCaption

bripat9643 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.
Click to expand...


That's like saying a clown and an assassin are harmful.  To quote Meek Mills "There's levels to this shit"


----------



## Pogo

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't have to eat it.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
Click to expand...


That's an insane argument.  You could use the same logic to abolish the FAA and declare, "hey, if you don't like planes flying around without supervision, don't fly in them".

Makes no sense.  Part of the role of government is the security of its citizens.  And that means from within as well as without.


----------



## paulitician

Eventually, Big Brother will dictate all Americans' diets. HALLELUJAH OBAMACARE!!!


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.
Click to expand...


Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy.  Those things are not "harmful" inherently.  Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be.  And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".

When you don't know what you're talking about it's best to STFU.  For you that should be easy- it covers almost everything.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're actually trying to equate trans fats with _freedom of religion_?
> 
> Are you completely insane??
> 
> Marty, you're playing this intp way WAY more than it is in the cause of Randian blind ideology.  All the FDA is doing is proposing to remove trans fats from the GRAS list.  *ALL* of the additives in your food had to make the GRAS (Generally Recognizes as Safe) list.  That is *nothing* new, and considering crap (such as Aspartame) that have already gotten _*through *_that filter due to lobby money and the DC revolving door, FDA doesn't do enough.
> 
> Again, you're trying to stand up for Big Food's "right" to poison its product.  That is insane.  No such right *exists*.  You can sell whatever food product you can come up with; you don't have the right to make it toxic.
> 
> Is _this _what you want for us, just so you can prostrate yourself before the holy Ayn Rand?
> How Aspartame became legal
> 
> Equating freedom of religion with freedom to inject foods with trans fats... unbelievable
Click to expand...


Transfat is not toxic in the doses found in normal food. Please try to use the right nomenclature. 

And its not freedom of religion. Its the logic of:

You have a choice, follow a religion and go to heaven, don't follow it and go to hell. Now you have to figure out if the religion is correct in assuming there is a heaven or a hell. One line of thought is follow the religion if it isnt too bad, and you are covered, if there is a heaven or hell, you go to heaven, if there is no heaven or hell, you really arent that worse off. 

Here you have a choice, ban trans fats or don't. We have an idea they are harmful, but its not to the point where we know people that eat them are going to die for sure, but lets hedge our bets, and if we are wrong? Well to some people it no loss, but to others, it a loss of freedom in general to nitpicky government regulations that have no consitutional muster.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Pogo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't have to eat it.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an insane argument.  You could use the same logic to abolish the FAA and declare, "hey, if you don't like planes flying around without supervision, don't fly in them".
Click to expand...


No, it's absolutely nothing like that at all.  Me flying around without supervision can endanger others.  Me eating food with trans fats in it, does not.


----------



## Camp

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't have to eat it.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
Click to expand...


That isn't really accurate. Products can cantain small amounts of trans fat and legaly be labeled as having 0 because the amount is small. The problem is that you could be consuming several products on a regular basis or even daily which amounts to what you believe to be an unhealthy practice that you thought you were avoiding. In addition you are subject to the honesty of restaurants who may claim they don't use this ingredient. You are dependent on the owner, the management and even the cook to insure your health and choice as to what you consume.


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read plenty of studies in general, I don't blindy trust them the way progressive lemmings such as yourself tend to do.
Click to expand...



That's great!  Got anymore excuses on why youre ignorant.  You're not a rebel for ignoring information.  That just makes you willfully ignorant.  You don't even have a reason you don't believe them lol.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- because the fact that he knows that means that _everybody _knows that.  Right?
> 
> What benefit do _you_ get from trans fats, Pothead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always, without logical fallacy, you'd never approach logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will you be deprived of?
> If it's blood flow to the synapses I'm afraid it's too late...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they ban speech the government feels inappropriate, only those who use inappropriate speech will be affected - so why should anyone object?
> 
> Pol Pot would be extra-proud of you today, possum boi....
Click to expand...


Translation: "No answer".

Exactly my point.  Thanks for playing Martin to my Rowan.


----------



## paulitician

What dey gon do wid all dat tran fat in Michelle O's big ole rump?


----------



## Katzndogz

Pogo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trans fats are used as a preservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is formaldehyde.  Doesn't mean I'm going to sprinkle formaldehyde on my hummus.
Click to expand...


There are all kinds of preservatives with varying degrees of unhealthyness.  Read the label, buy what you want.  Most people knowing that transfats are unhealthy will avoid them, but not eliminate them.   Food will just spoil faster, have shorter shelf lives and be much more expensive since it won't last as long.


----------



## Vox

Matthew said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> An implication of self-ownership is that I can then use my justly acquired property, money, to purchase whatever I like so long as I commit no aggression against anybody else. Trans-fats may be harmful to my health, but no violence is being committed against me when I choose to purchase and ingest items containing them. However, violence is being used to stop people from selling these things, and thus the rights of both producers and consumers are being aggressed against.
> 
> As for airbags and seat belts, I am very much opposed to using violence to force people to make and sell cars containing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Violence"?  In what comic book?
> 
> When the FDA screens a new drug for safety is it committing "violence"?
> When the FAA tells a plane to wait for runway 4 is that "violence"?
> Is there a guy with a truncheon at the auto assembly plant ready to bash heads if a car doesn't have a seat belt in it?
> 
> And btw whence derives a food purveyor this "right" to insert poisons into their product sold for *public* consumption?
> 
> Seriously, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people hate government and everything it does. If they had their way we'd look worse then Mexico!
> 
> To hell with that poison in that met
> To hell with that plane flying to low
> To hell with that hurricane hitting the coast. You little guy should learn how to read the wid!
Click to expand...


Hating the government is a natural, healthy and self-preservational thing for a taxpayer and a citizen. Only a brainwashed, mindless, ignorant idiot loves, worships or venerates the government. The state of the normalcy of one's mind requires the recognition that the wild beast, which any government is, although it is necessary to perform some functions designated and delivered to it by the people, it has to be vigilantly watched, controlled and restrained, because the moment it goes out of restraints and control it starts serving only itself and the people discover themselves behind the barbed wire of the labor camp(figurative speech).

And although I do consider those who do not differentiate between the needed necessity and real intrusion to be a bit annoying at times, those, who venerate and worship the beast are much more dangerous and stupid
The first can be educated, government worshipers are the lost cause of cretinism.


----------



## Pogo

DiamondDave said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker...
> 
> The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing
> 
> If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..
Click to expand...


Well -- yeah, it is.  That's why we have meat inspections.  And drug approvals.  And expiration dates and ingredient lists and laws about fraudulent advertising -- ALL of which address practices that would be, and have been, abused in pursuit of profit at the expense of public health.  After all, the objective of the company is to maximize its profits --- not to look out for public health.  It's a necessary evil that gubbamint has to do that, it's done that way everywhere in the world, and by the way welcome to Earth.

What the fuck is WRONG with some of you people?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Put the cocaine back in coke!!


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy.  Those things are not "harmful" inherently.
Click to expand...


And neither are trans-fats, dipstick.



Pogo said:


> Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be.  And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".



Of course there is.  One steak contains excess fat.  Eating an excess of anything is harmful.



Pogo said:


> When you don't know what you're talking about it's best to STFU.  For you that should be easy- it covers almost everything.



ROFL!  Did the petulant little libturd got his ass kicked again?


----------



## Pogo

Katzndogz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trans fats are used as a preservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is formaldehyde.  Doesn't mean I'm going to sprinkle formaldehyde on my hummus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are all kinds of preservatives with varying degrees of unhealthyness.  *Read the label, buy what you want.  Most people knowing that transfats are unhealthy* will avoid them, but not eliminate them.   Food will just spoil faster, have shorter shelf lives and be much more expensive since it won't last as long.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right

And foodmongers, knowing that trans fats are a negative, would _never _start calling them something else like "partially unsaturated" to slip by the reader radar.  Never happens. 

Clearly everyone knows all this because nobody buys frozen pizza any more.


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read plenty of studies in general, I don't blindy trust them the way progressive lemmings such as yourself tend to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's great!  Got anymore excuses on why youre ignorant.  You're not a rebel for ignoring information.  That just makes you willfully ignorant.  You don't even have a reason you don't believe them lol.
Click to expand...


I dont care about them. If I get a little transfat in my popcorn i'm not going to die of poisoning. Whats IS going affect me is the concept that I need the government to figure out what I can and cannot eat once given all the information and facts about a topic. Its the same bullshit that makes the FDA feel it can ban unpasturized cheese, even if the people eating it know the risks and are willing to suffer the consequences.

Tell me transfats are bad and let me make a decsion, stop trying to ban everything you think MAY be bad. 

Get the fuck out of my life you progressive nanny-statist twat.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy.  Those things are not "harmful" inherently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither are trans-fats, dipstick.
Click to expand...






bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be.  And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.  One steak contains excess fat.  Eating an excess of anything is harmful.
Click to expand...


 

Sooooo.... you're saying one steak contains more fat than it contains?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker...
> 
> The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing
> 
> If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well -- yeah, it is.  That's why we have meat inspections.  And drug approvals.  And expiration dates and ingredient lists and laws about fraudulent advertising -- ALL of which address practices that would be, and have been, abused in pursuit of profit at the expense of public health.  After all, the objective of the company is to maximize its profits --- not to look out for public health.  It's a necessary evil that gubbamint has to do that, it's done that way everywhere in the world, and by the way welcome to Earth.
> 
> What the fuck is WRONG with some of you people?
Click to expand...


Uh . . no, that isn't why we have those things.  There are two real reasons:  One, because turds like you who don't know any better agitate and scare the public about non-problems until Congress decides it's politically expedient to pass legislation.  Two, because Food companies lobby the government to regulate their competitors so they won't have to produce a better product.


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Another day, another ban. Oh well, such is life in the Police State.



-- says the wag on the Internet (developed by the government), before he goes out to drive on the road (constructed by the government) to the airport to catch a plane, (regulated by the government) stopping for a meal of food meeting saftey standards (developed by the government) so he can take his medication (etc etc)...


----------



## ClosedCaption

Thanks Marty for admitting you don't care about the information on Trans fat.because ignorance is apparently a virtue to you.  Keep making your decisions based on emotions, It looks good on you.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another ban. Oh well, such is life in the Police State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- says the wag on the Internet (developed by the government), before he goes out to drive on the road (constructed by the government) to the airport to catch a plane, (regulated by the government) stopping for a meal of food meeting saftey standards (developed by the government) so he can take his medication (etc etc)...
Click to expand...


Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Camp said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't have to eat it.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't really accurate. Products can cantain small amounts of trans fat and legaly be labeled as having 0 because the amount is small. The problem is that you could be consuming several products on a regular basis or even daily which amounts to what you believe to be an unhealthy practice that you thought you were avoiding. In addition you are subject to the honesty of restaurants who may claim they don't use this ingredient. You are dependent on the owner, the management and even the cook to insure your health and choice as to what you consume.
Click to expand...


But the government is far more trustworthy because they're never caught in lies, right?


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> Thanks Marty for admitting you don't care about the information on Trans fat.because ignorance is apparently a virtue to you.  Keep making your decisions based on emotions, It looks good on you.



And keep up sucking government dick every time your betters think they know whats best for you.  Of course when they finally go and ban something YOU like I bet your panties will get all bunched up, but you will get on your knees and slurp what your overlords give you.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

DiamondDave said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker...
> 
> The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing
> 
> If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..
Click to expand...


You must understand who these folks are...  they're _lazy_.  They want to be protected from themselves... they envision a life free from worry.

Simply put, they're very dangerous.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy.  Those things are not "harmful" inherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither are trans-fats, dipstick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be.  And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is.  One steak contains excess fat.  Eating an excess of anything is harmful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.... you're saying one steak contains more fat than it contains?
Click to expand...


No.  It contains excess fat, dipstick - more than anyone should eat at a single sitting.  No one sits down to eat a bowl full of pure fat or pure sugar, just as no one ever sits down to eat a bowl of trans-fat.


----------



## Pogo

jon_berzerk said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trans fat another item to be listed
> 
> on the black market top ten list
> 
> of profitable smuggling items
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.

Freaking wacko.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another day, another ban. Oh well, such is life in the Police State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- says the wag on the Internet (developed by the government), before he goes out to drive on the road (constructed by the government) to the airport to catch a plane, (regulated by the government) stopping for a meal of food meeting saftey standards (developed by the government) so he can take his medication (etc etc)...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.
Click to expand...


Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- says the wag on the Internet (developed by the government), before he goes out to drive on the road (constructed by the government) to the airport to catch a plane, (regulated by the government) stopping for a meal of food meeting saftey standards (developed by the government) so he can take his medication (etc etc)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
Click to expand...


Again with the argumentum absurdum you gutless hack.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Translation: "No answer"



ROFL

You trot out the retarded; "how does this personally affect you"  shit and then have the nerve to claim others have no answer?

You Communists are a hoot - when you not marching people off to killing fields and shit.



> Exactly my point.  Thanks for playing Martin to my Rowan.



You had no "point," you're just flinging feces like a feral baboon.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trans fat another item to be listed
> 
> on the black market top ten list
> 
> of profitable smuggling items
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.
> 
> Freaking wacko.
Click to expand...


Give government an inch, it takes a mile. If it wants to tell me trans fats may be bad, fine, there is no reason to ban them.


----------



## Pogo

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?
> 
> Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Then you don't have to eat it*.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
Click to expand...


Not a rational argument.  We live in a system where you go to a grocery and exchange currency for your food; that means your choices are *confined* to what's in there.

For instance -- I like tomato soup and tomato sauce, but I don't want it with sugar in it.  That's not possible, because it's not for sale.  I DO have to take the sugar.

Not saying "regulate the sugar out", but I _*am*_ saying your idea that "you don't have to eat it" doesn't fly.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "No answer"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You trot out the retarded; "how does this personally affect you"  shit and then have the nerve to claim others have no answer?
> 
> You Communist are a hoot - when you not marching people off to killing fields and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly my point.  Thanks for playing Martin to my Rowan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had no "point," you're just flinging feces like a feral baboon.
Click to expand...


Translation: "Still no answer"

Heard you the first time actually.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- says the wag on the Internet (developed by the government), before he goes out to drive on the road (constructed by the government) to the airport to catch a plane, (regulated by the government) stopping for a meal of food meeting saftey standards (developed by the government) so he can take his medication (etc etc)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't manufacture planes, moron.  And yes, the police state is what results when government takes over far too many social and economic functions.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> trans fat another item to be listed
> 
> on the black market top ten list
> 
> of profitable smuggling items
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.
> 
> Freaking wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give government an inch, it takes a mile. If it wants to tell me trans fats may be bad, fine, there is no reason to ban them.
Click to expand...


Once again, we're back to this--
Under this logic there's "no reason" to ban arsenic in food, "no reason" to screen for salmonella, "no reason" to regulate air traffic, and "no reason" to have municipal water systems.

Go find your own well, right caveman?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't manufacture planes, moron.  And yes, the police state is what results when government takes over far too many social and economic functions.
Click to expand...


The government _*does *_regulate where and how those planes can fly, dipshit.

But go ahead, shut all that down and go fly somewhere.  Let us know how that works out.


----------



## Foxfyre

It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.

But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.

What's next?  Mandates of how much of any fat we can consume?  How much salt or sugar we may ingest.  Outlawing peanuts because somebody MIGHT be allergic?  

Trans fat was once lauded as a healthier alternative to beef fat or other fat renderings.  And now it is the #1 villain in the culinary world.  But remember that coconut oil was once banned by the government in movie theaters because it contained saturated fat. And that wonderful amazing flavor we once loved about movie theater popcorn suddenly went away to be replaced by more 'healthy' oil and gobs of melted butter.

Now the evidence is in that the banned coconut oil back then was partially hydrogenated and contained trans fat which the government didn't address at all.  Pure virgin non hydrogenated coconut oil has no trans fat and now is deemed to be not so bad--it even has some health benefits.

Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.

I say let the government issue sufficient regulation to protect the food supply from contaminents as it can, and require honesty and integrity in labeling, and then let us make the choices about what we will eat and drink.  I feel more competent to do that for my own benefit than I trust the government to make such choices for me.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government doesn't manufacture planes, moron.  And yes, the police state is what results when government takes over far too many social and economic functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government _*does *_regulate where and how those planes can fly, dipshit.
> 
> But go ahead, shut all that down and go fly somewhere.  Let us know how that works out.
Click to expand...


And the airlines go along with it willingly because they prefer their planes to not blunder into each other while flying. 

again with the absurdium argument from someone who is nothing but absurd.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.
> 
> Freaking wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give government an inch, it takes a mile. If it wants to tell me trans fats may be bad, fine, there is no reason to ban them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, we're back to this--
> Under this logic there's "no reason" to ban arsenic in food, "no reason" to screen for salmonella, "no reason" to regulate air traffic, and "no reason" to have municipal water systems.
> 
> Go find your own well, right caveman?
Click to expand...


argumentum ad absurdium is all you got isnt it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.
> 
> Freaking wacko.



Do us a favor, and at least TRY not to be so fucking stupid....

Trans-fat is used for a variety of reasons, none of which include the poisoning of people. Trans-fat significantly retards spoilage in many products. What was said about maggots in the food is entirely true, once banned, the shelf life of peanut butter, snack cakes, whipped toppings, etc. will be a fraction of what they are now.

And before you start, whether I personally eat these things is irrelevant - another logical fallacy - you simpering baboon.

Trans-fat also keeps foods soft. It's used in cookies and cakes to retain a soft texture. 

In both these cases, the amount ingested under NORMAL circumstances - a couple of cookies a week, a scoop of Cool-Plastic on pie once a week, will have ZERO ill effects. 

As always, researchers fed MASSIVE doses to rats and mice and found health concerns. Yes, eat 50 cookies a day for a month and the trans-fat is bad for you. Of course you're going to get diabetes from all the sugar and die from that LONG before the TF clogs your arteries - but thinking isn't something the left is capable of.

Do I personally eat trans-fats? Hell no, I try to tip the odds in my favor - because that's the truth of all of this, we tip the odds one way or another. I don't smoke and I do exercise - for the same reason.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Translation: "Still no answer"
> 
> Heard you the first time actually.



Have a banana...

And get thee to a baboonary...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Once again, we're back to this--
> Under this logic there's "no reason" to ban arsenic in food,



Arsenic is NOT banned in food.

Maximum safe levels are set, but there is no ban.




> "no reason" to screen for salmonella, "no reason" to regulate air traffic, and "no reason" to have municipal water systems.
> 
> Go find your own well, right caveman?



The lack of reason, is purely on your part. You offer emotion with no thought.


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Marty for admitting you don't care about the information on Trans fat.because ignorance is apparently a virtue to you.  Keep making your decisions based on emotions, It looks good on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And keep up sucking government dick every time your betters think they know whats best for you.  Of course when they finally go and ban something YOU like I bet your panties will get all bunched up, but you will get on your knees and slurp what your overlords give you.
Click to expand...


Its ok you still have your emotions


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Sodium nitrates aren't banned in foods.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.



Great start and analogy. 



Foxfyre said:


> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.



This analogy --- not so good.  Yes, the micromanagement of soft drink sizes is overreach, BUT trans fats are in no way comparable.  It's not a "choice" anyone wants-- as we said nobody goes shopping for trans fats, sprinkles them on their food or even advertises it.  For the same reason nobody advertises how many bug parts and rodent droppings are in their hot dogs. 

Let's develop that --

>> Here&#8217;s a taste of what you can expect to find on the table this Thanksgiving. Bon appétit!

Canned mushrooms can include more than 20 maggots &#8220;of any size&#8221; and 75 mites, per 100 grams. Same goes for 15 grams of dried mushrooms. No more than 10% of your mushrooms can be &#8220;decomposed.&#8221;

For every 100 grams of ground cinnamon, it&#8217;s OK to include 400 or more insect fragments (legs, heads, wings, thoraxes, etc.), and 22 or more rodent hairs&#8212;a substance the FDA charmingly refers to as &#8220;rodent filth.&#8221;

Brussels sprouts can include 30 or more tiny insects, called aphids, per every 100 grams of veggie. << (source)

..... Is the Big Bad fascist FDA depriving us of the right to eat more maggots?  Are my Constitutional rights to munch rodent hairs infringed here?  Who is the government to tell me I can't have insect thoraxes?

This is the absurd point we reach when we ride the ideological dogma into the ground.  Makes no sense.  Defending the right for a company we're not part of to inject toxins into food that we wouldn't eat anyway?  What the hell is the point?

Once AGAIN -- what the FDA is doing is proposing, with the requisite comment period, to take trans fats off the GRAS list.  ALL of what we eat is already regulated by the GRAS list, and as noted before, not nearly to the extent it should be (see Aspartame -- if only some of you so rabid about government abuse were equally vigilant about corporate abuse, but noooooo....)



Foxfyre said:


> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.



No.  It isn't.  This is the *FDA*.  The government has been overseeing safety standards in food and drugs *for over a century and a half*.  Because as you correctly noted at the top, institutional regulation is necessary.

Some people just need to pull their head out of the Rand.


----------



## DiamondDave

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Sugar is harmful.  Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful.  If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy.  *Those things are not "harmful" inherently.*  Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be.  And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".
> 
> When you don't know what you're talking about it's best to STFU.  For you that should be easy- it covers almost everything.
Click to expand...


Nor are trans fats..


----------



## DiamondDave

Pogo said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is harmful. Any type of smoke is harmful. Cholesterol is harmful. Bleach is harmful. Knives are harmful. Being in the sun is harmful. Drinking soda is harmful. Having unprotected sex with someone you don't know is harmful. Microwaves are harmful.
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker...
> 
> The government does not exist to protect your from yourself for every last little thing
> 
> If you want to put out the information that trans fats are not very healthy and that in 10, 20, or 30 years your body will be worse off for it... FINE.. but it is not the government's job to keep every last piddly shit harmful thing out of any realm of possibility of being obtained..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well -- yeah, it is.  That's why we have meat inspections.  And drug approvals.  And expiration dates and ingredient lists and laws about fraudulent advertising -- ALL of which address practices that would be, and have been, abused in pursuit of profit at the expense of public health.  After all, the objective of the company is to maximize its profits --- not to look out for public health.  It's a necessary evil that gubbamint has to do that, it's done that way everywhere in the world, and by the way welcome to Earth.
> 
> What the fuck is WRONG with some of you people?
Click to expand...


Well.. no.. it is not


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Marty for admitting you don't care about the information on Trans fat.because ignorance is apparently a virtue to you.  Keep making your decisions based on emotions, It looks good on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And keep up sucking government dick every time your betters think they know whats best for you.  Of course when they finally go and ban something YOU like I bet your panties will get all bunched up, but you will get on your knees and slurp what your overlords give you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its ok you still have your emotions
Click to expand...


Emotion in the face of bastards such as you who want to give government as much power over our lives as possible is not a bug, its a feature.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we're back to this--
> Under this logic there's "no reason" to ban arsenic in food,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arsenic is NOT banned in food.
> 
> Maximum safe levels are set, but there is no ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "no reason" to screen for salmonella, "no reason" to regulate air traffic, and "no reason" to have municipal water systems.
> 
> Go find your own well, right caveman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lack of reason, is purely on your part. You offer emotion with no thought.
Click to expand...


I offer sarcasm.  Some can't handle it.

Hey, get the FDA on it. 

This is where the irony comes in -- the same wags (not you but others) who sing the blues about the government übercontrol, claiming they want the choice to poison themselves, also gang up to neg me, trying to übercontrol my posts.   My hypocrisy meter finds that *hilarious*.


----------



## ClosedCaption

So now the FDA is considered an "enemy" too?


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And keep up sucking government dick every time your betters think they know whats best for you.  Of course when they finally go and ban something YOU like I bet your panties will get all bunched up, but you will get on your knees and slurp what your overlords give you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its ok you still have your emotions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotion in the face of bastards such as you who want to give government as much power over our lives as possible is not a bug, its a feature.
Click to expand...


Want a tissue?  A blankey?  You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions.  Dont be that girl.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, those are all the classic symptoms of the police state - along with bootlicking trolls like you, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with the argumentum absurdum you gutless hack.
Click to expand...


Again, learn the meaning of sarcasm.  Perhaps you're just not smart enough.
It's prolly the lead paint you're eating as a matter of principle.


----------



## Contumacious

Pogo said:


> The government _*does *_regulate where and how those planes can fly, dipshit.
> 
> But go ahead, shut all that down and go fly somewhere.  Let us know how that works out.


*
Talks on Private Air-Traffic Control Turn Serious in U.S.*

Discussions about removing government management of the U.S. air-traffic control system are the most serious in two decades, prompted by budget cuts and uncertain funding for converting to satellite navigation.

Leaders of the U.S. air-traffic controllers union and a private-pilot lobbying group, once fierce opponents of taking control of the system away from the Federal Aviation Administration, have endorsed talks on other ways to manage and pay for aviation safety.

There are conversations taking place among the stakeholders, Gerald Dillingham, civil aviation director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said in an interview. All things are on the table, including privatization or corporatization. 

.


----------



## Spoonman

novasteve said:


> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass



also funny how we were once told by the experts to drop butter and use margerine.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great start and analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This analogy --- not so good.  Yes, the micromanagement of soft drink sizes is overreach, BUT trans fats are in no way comparable.  It's not a "choice" anyone wants-- as we said nobody goes shopping for trans fats, sprinkles them on their food or even advertises it.  For the same reason nobody advertises how many bug parts and rodent droppings are in their hot dogs.
> 
> Let's develop that --
> 
> >> Here&#8217;s a taste of what you can expect to find on the table this Thanksgiving. Bon appétit!
> 
> Canned mushrooms can include more than 20 maggots &#8220;of any size&#8221; and 75 mites, per 100 grams. Same goes for 15 grams of dried mushrooms. No more than 10% of your mushrooms can be &#8220;decomposed.&#8221;
> 
> For every 100 grams of ground cinnamon, it&#8217;s OK to include 400 or more insect fragments (legs, heads, wings, thoraxes, etc.), and 22 or more rodent hairs&#8212;a substance the FDA charmingly refers to as &#8220;rodent filth.&#8221;
> 
> Brussels sprouts can include 30 or more tiny insects, called aphids, per every 100 grams of veggie. << (source)
> 
> ..... Is the Big Bad fascist FDA depriving us of the right to eat more maggots?  Are my Constitutional rights to munch rodent hairs infringed here?  Who is the government to tell me I can't have insect thoraxes?
> 
> This is the absurd point we reach when we ride the ideological dogma into the ground.  Makes no sense.  Defending the right for a company we're not part of to inject toxins into food that we wouldn't eat anyway?  What the hell is the point?
> 
> Once AGAIN -- what the FDA is doing is proposing, with the requisite comment period, to take trans fats off the GRAS list.  ALL of what we eat is already regulated by the GRAS list, and as noted before, not nearly to the extent it should be (see Aspartame -- if only some of you so rabid about government abuse were equally vigilant about corporate abuse, but noooooo....)
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  This is the *FDA*.  The government has been overseeing safety standards in food and drugs *for over a century and a half*.  Because as you correctly noted at the top, institutional regulation is necessary.
> 
> Some people just need to pull their head out of the Rand.
Click to expand...


The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.

I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.

There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because only police states have planes and roads and postal services and public parks and food safety standards and drug safety standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the argumentum absurdum you gutless hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, learn the meaning of sarcasm.  Perhaps you're just not smart enough.
> It's prolly the lead paint you're eating as a matter of principle.
Click to expand...


Its not sarcasm when you are trying to make a point, its a logical fallacy. Try to keep up though.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I offer sarcasm.  Some can't handle it.



You offer mostly bullshit, with a strong dose of blowing smoke.



> Hey, get the FDA on it.
> 
> This is where the irony comes in -- the same wags (not you but others) who sing the blues about the government übercontrol, claiming they want the choice to poison themselves, also gang up to neg me, trying to übercontrol my posts.   My hypocrisy meter finds that *hilarious*.



As you pointed out, I neg no one. Besides, I like you and your posts, why would I neg you?

I like a lot of people around here that I disagree with.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point --- NOBODY has anything to gain from trans fats.  Nobody goes out to the store to buy trans fats.  Nobody sits down to a meal and says "please pass the trans fats".  Nobody even sells a product _advertising _their trans fats.  In short it has *nothing *to recommend it -- yet here come the knee jerks with this lockstep Randian botshit, falling all over themselves to defend the existence of a synthetic product they claim they don't even use.
> 
> Freaking wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do us a favor, and at least TRY not to be so fucking stupid....
> 
> Trans-fat is used for a variety of reasons, none of which include the poisoning of people. Trans-fat significantly retards spoilage in many products. What was said about maggots in the food is entirely true, once banned, the shelf life of peanut butter, snack cakes, whipped toppings, etc. will be a fraction of what they are now.
> 
> And before you start, whether I personally eat these things is irrelevant - another logical fallacy - you simpering baboon.
Click to expand...


It's _absolutely _relevant, because if you're seeking a right to something you don't use, then you must have another angle, and we need to know what it is.  Do you work for Hormel?

And to part 1 - transfats are hardly the only preservative.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Trans-fat also keeps foods soft. It's used in cookies and cakes to retain a soft texture.
> 
> In both these cases, the amount ingested under NORMAL circumstances - a couple of cookies a week, a scoop of Cool-Plastic on pie once a week, will have ZERO ill effects.



As you noted, you can ingest a certain amount of arsenic too.  So now you're down to admitting no redeeming value and it's only a matter of degree.



Uncensored2008 said:


> As always, researchers fed MASSIVE doses to rats and mice and found health concerns. Yes, eat 50 cookies a day for a month and the trans-fat is bad for you. Of course you're going to get diabetes from all the sugar and die from that LONG before the TF clogs your arteries - but thinking isn't something the left is capable of.
> 
> Do I personally eat trans-fats? Hell no, I try to tip the odds in my favor - because that's the truth of all of this, we tip the odds one way or another. I don't smoke and I do exercise - for the same reason.



So ..... wtf?  "Do as I say, not as I do".  Thanks for playin'.


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its ok you still have your emotions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotion in the face of bastards such as you who want to give government as much power over our lives as possible is not a bug, its a feature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want a tissue?  A blankey?  You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions.  Dont be that girl.
Click to expand...


You are the one that needs big daddy government to cuddle with you, put a blanket over you to keep you warm, and tell you that you are "special."

There are no "facts" that banning these transfats will do anything to help anyone, its all based on studies and assumed "thoeretical avoided heart attacks" that have no real meaning.


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offer sarcasm.  Some can't handle it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You offer mostly bullshit, with a strong dose of blowing smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, get the FDA on it.
> 
> This is where the irony comes in -- the same wags (not you but others) who sing the blues about the government übercontrol, claiming they want the choice to poison themselves, also gang up to neg me, trying to übercontrol my posts.   My hypocrisy meter finds that *hilarious*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you pointed out, I neg no one. Besides, I like you and your posts, why would I neg you?
> 
> I like a lot of people around here that I disagree with.
Click to expand...


To be clear, no you didn't neg me.  I don't think you and I have exchanged anything but positives, and that's why you can make wacko points and I'll still read them. 
But three others, and they know who they are, trying to make the case for keeping government out of food control, couldn't keep themselves out of thought control. I just find that duplicity ironic.

Sarcasm (some here confuse it with "argumentum ad absurdum") simply demonstrates, "here's your thought applied to the real world, there's how silly it is".

Hard to believe I have to explain on a message board what sarcasm is...


----------



## Foxfyre

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotion in the face of bastards such as you who want to give government as much power over our lives as possible is not a bug, its a feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want a tissue?  A blankey?  You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions.  Dont be that girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that needs big daddy government to cuddle with you, put a blanket over you to keep you warm, and tell you that you are "special."
> 
> There are no "facts" that banning these transfats will do anything to help anyone, its all based on studies and assumed "thoeretical avoided heart attacks" that have no real meaning.
Click to expand...


Personally I avoid trans fat as much as possible.  I religiously read labels and if the label says trans fat, I almost always put the product back on the shelf.  But I am not a religious fanatic about it either, and if somebody offers me a cookie, and I want it, I eat it regardless of whether it might contain some trans fat.  I figure almost everything is non harmful in small doses.  A steady diet of only organically grown fresh fruit will eventually kill a person if that is the only thing they eat.

Ingesting too much fat, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. is going to be just as bad and harmful to people as ingesting a lot of trans fat or anything else.  Remember that probably 98% of all people who die have eaten carrots.  And we don't avoid those.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great start and analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> This analogy --- not so good.  Yes, the micromanagement of soft drink sizes is overreach, BUT trans fats are in no way comparable.  It's not a "choice" anyone wants-- as we said nobody goes shopping for trans fats, sprinkles them on their food or even advertises it.  For the same reason nobody advertises how many bug parts and rodent droppings are in their hot dogs.
> 
> Let's develop that --
> 
> >> Here&#8217;s a taste of what you can expect to find on the table this Thanksgiving. Bon appétit!
> 
> Canned mushrooms can include more than 20 maggots &#8220;of any size&#8221; and 75 mites, per 100 grams. Same goes for 15 grams of dried mushrooms. No more than 10% of your mushrooms can be &#8220;decomposed.&#8221;
> 
> For every 100 grams of ground cinnamon, it&#8217;s OK to include 400 or more insect fragments (legs, heads, wings, thoraxes, etc.), and 22 or more rodent hairs&#8212;a substance the FDA charmingly refers to as &#8220;rodent filth.&#8221;
> 
> Brussels sprouts can include 30 or more tiny insects, called aphids, per every 100 grams of veggie. << (source)
> 
> ..... Is the Big Bad fascist FDA depriving us of the right to eat more maggots?  Are my Constitutional rights to munch rodent hairs infringed here?  Who is the government to tell me I can't have insect thoraxes?
> 
> This is the absurd point we reach when we ride the ideological dogma into the ground.  Makes no sense.  Defending the right for a company we're not part of to inject toxins into food that we wouldn't eat anyway?  What the hell is the point?
> 
> Once AGAIN -- what the FDA is doing is proposing, with the requisite comment period, to take trans fats off the GRAS list.  ALL of what we eat is already regulated by the GRAS list, and as noted before, not nearly to the extent it should be (see Aspartame -- if only some of you so rabid about government abuse were equally vigilant about corporate abuse, but noooooo....)
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  This is the *FDA*.  The government has been overseeing safety standards in food and drugs *for over a century and a half*.  Because as you correctly noted at the top, institutional regulation is necessary.
> 
> Some people just need to pull their head out of the Rand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
Click to expand...


That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.

Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want a tissue?  A blankey?  You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions.  Dont be that girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that needs big daddy government to cuddle with you, put a blanket over you to keep you warm, and tell you that you are "special."
> 
> There are no "facts" that banning these transfats will do anything to help anyone, its all based on studies and assumed "thoeretical avoided heart attacks" that have no real meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I avoid trans fat as much as possible.  I religiously read labels and if the label says trans fat, I almost always put the product back on the shelf.  But I am not a religious fanatic about it either, and if somebody offers me a cookie, and I want it, I eat it regardless of whether it might contain some trans fat.  I figure almost everything is non harmful in small doses.  A steady diet of only organically grown fresh fruit will eventually kill a person if that is the only thing they eat.
> 
> Ingesting too much fat, too much sugar, too much salt, etc. is going to be just as bad and harmful to people as ingesting a lot of trans fat or anything else.  Remember that probably 98% of all people who die have eaten carrots.  And we don't avoid those.
Click to expand...


Carrots?  _Carrots?_?

Your analogies are getting worse and worse.  I recommend more coffee.  Made with government filtered water, perhaps with a dash of FDA-regulated cream.


----------



## Vox

Foxfyre said:


> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.
> 
> What's next?  Mandates of how much of any fat we can consume?  How much salt or sugar we may ingest.  Outlawing peanuts because somebody MIGHT be allergic?
> 
> Trans fat was once lauded as a healthier alternative to beef fat or other fat renderings.  And now it is the #1 villain in the culinary world.  But remember that coconut oil was once banned by the government in movie theaters because it contained saturated fat. And that wonderful amazing flavor we once loved about movie theater popcorn suddenly went away to be replaced by more 'healthy' oil and gobs of melted butter.
> 
> Now the evidence is in that the banned coconut oil back then was partially hydrogenated and contained trans fat which the government didn't address at all.  Pure virgin non hydrogenated coconut oil has no trans fat and now is deemed to be not so bad--it even has some health benefits.
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> I say let the government issue sufficient regulation to protect the food supply from contaminents as it can, and require honesty and integrity in labeling, and then let us make the choices about what we will eat and drink.  I feel more competent to do that for my own benefit than I trust the government to make such choices for me.



the influence of different substances on the human body is a constant research theme and as such is destined to ever change.
That is why we have FDA to start with.
To regulate and mandate the INDUSTRIES which produce food, nutritional supplements and medications.

That is the agency's sole purpose.

yes, I have a personal professional beef with the agency - because there are tons of decisions which are questionable at best.

But neither of those decisions is impacting the freedom of choice to eat, drink, even medicate oneself. Because, as I have stated before - the agency regulates the process of synthesis, maintenance and safe distribution of the substances which are done by businesses for profit.

equating this regulatory necessity with one's freedom of choice to ingest poisons - is a humongous stretch.

you can manufacture and then ingest a lot of poisons - and there is the whole internet to educate you how to do that. You can do it if you chose to.
Does not mean those particular and proven poisons should be allowed in an industry for massive consumption.
It is exactly the area where we, collectively, and with grumpy regret, delegate some of our unlimited freedoms to the agency and expect it to maintain our safety and security in response.

Trans fats are neither necessary nor beneficial for the food you are eating. Same is pertinent for high fructose corn syrup - which should have been banned a decade ago 9 but the lobby is too potent).

Making trans fats a banner of freedom is ridiculous, to say the least.

it is strange that a ban on butter in NYC schools did not encounter such a fierce resistance - and the latter one is an example of exponential idiocy - because butter is not only healthy and natural, it looks like the nutritional science and medicine will make a full circle and return to the point of start - where all of us were eating butter, lard and natural vegetable oils only


----------



## Pogo

LordBrownTrout said:


> Sodium nitrates aren't banned in foods.



Right, they're not.  As noted before the FDA doesn't do its job enough.  We already mentioned Aspartame twice; nobody jumped up to defend that.

Personally I screen ingredient labels to avoid nitrates, but if they were to start calling it resplatte (anagram of _saltpeter_) -- I wouldn't know, would I? 

That's where regulation comes in.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.
> 
> What's next?  Mandates of how much of any fat we can consume?  How much salt or sugar we may ingest.  Outlawing peanuts because somebody MIGHT be allergic?
> 
> Trans fat was once lauded as a healthier alternative to beef fat or other fat renderings.  And now it is the #1 villain in the culinary world.  But remember that coconut oil was once banned by the government in movie theaters because it contained saturated fat. And that wonderful amazing flavor we once loved about movie theater popcorn suddenly went away to be replaced by more 'healthy' oil and gobs of melted butter.
> 
> Now the evidence is in that the banned coconut oil back then was partially hydrogenated and contained trans fat which the government didn't address at all.  Pure virgin non hydrogenated coconut oil has no trans fat and now is deemed to be not so bad--it even has some health benefits.
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> I say let the government issue sufficient regulation to protect the food supply from contaminents as it can, and require honesty and integrity in labeling, and then let us make the choices about what we will eat and drink.  I feel more competent to do that for my own benefit than I trust the government to make such choices for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the influence of different substances on the human body is a constant research theme and as such is destined to ever change.
> That is why we have FDA to start with.
> To regulate and mandate the INDUSTRIES which produce food, nutritional supplements and medications.
> 
> That is the agency's sole purpose.
> 
> yes, I have a personal professional beef with the agency - because there are tons of decisions which are questionable at best.
> 
> But neither of those decisions is impacting the freedom of choice to eat, drink, even medicate oneself. Because, as I have stated before - the agency regulates the process of synthesis, maintenance and safe distribution of the substances which are done by businesses for profit.
> 
> equating this regulatory necessity with one's freedom of choice to ingest poisons - is a humongous stretch.
> 
> you can manufacture and then ingest a lot of poisons - and there is the whole internet to educate you how to do that. You can do it if you chose to.
> Does not mean those particular and proven poisons should be allowed in an industry for massive consumption.
> It is exactly the area where we, collectively, and with grumpy regret, delegate some of our unlimited freedoms to the agency and expect it to maintain our safety and security in response.
> 
> Trans fats are neither necessary nor beneficial for the food you are eating. Same is pertinent for high fructose corn syrup - which should have been banned a decade ago 9 but the lobby is too potent).
> 
> Making trans fats a banner of freedom is ridiculous, to say the least.
> 
> it is strange that a ban on butter in NYC schools did not encounter such a fierce resistance - and the latter one is an example of exponential idiocy - because butter is not only healthy and natural, it looks like the nutritional science and medicine will make a full circle and return to the point of start - where all of us were eating butter, lard and natural vegetable oils only
Click to expand...


If I could rep you again I would...


----------



## Mustang

ClosedCaption said:


> So now the FDA is considered an "enemy" too?



Obviously, a constitutional amendment defending trans fats and the people who make trans fats is necessary.  Add that to Mark Levin's list.


----------



## Pogo

Mustang said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the FDA is considered an "enemy" too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, a constitutional amendment defending trans fats and the people who make trans fats is necessary.  Add that to Mark Levin's list.
Click to expand...


The real question is... what does Alex Jones say about all this?

Oh wait -- we have this thread so we already know.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.
> 
> What's next?  Mandates of how much of any fat we can consume?  How much salt or sugar we may ingest.  Outlawing peanuts because somebody MIGHT be allergic?
> 
> Trans fat was once lauded as a healthier alternative to beef fat or other fat renderings.  And now it is the #1 villain in the culinary world.  But remember that coconut oil was once banned by the government in movie theaters because it contained saturated fat. And that wonderful amazing flavor we once loved about movie theater popcorn suddenly went away to be replaced by more 'healthy' oil and gobs of melted butter.
> 
> Now the evidence is in that the banned coconut oil back then was partially hydrogenated and contained trans fat which the government didn't address at all.  Pure virgin non hydrogenated coconut oil has no trans fat and now is deemed to be not so bad--it even has some health benefits.
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> I say let the government issue sufficient regulation to protect the food supply from contaminents as it can, and require honesty and integrity in labeling, and then let us make the choices about what we will eat and drink.  I feel more competent to do that for my own benefit than I trust the government to make such choices for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the influence of different substances on the human body is a constant research theme and as such is destined to ever change.
> That is why we have FDA to start with.
> To regulate and mandate the INDUSTRIES which produce food, nutritional supplements and medications.
> 
> That is the agency's sole purpose.
> 
> yes, I have a personal professional beef with the agency - because there are tons of decisions which are questionable at best.
> 
> But neither of those decisions is impacting the freedom of choice to eat, drink, even medicate oneself. Because, as I have stated before - the agency regulates the process of synthesis, maintenance and safe distribution of the substances which are done by businesses for profit.
> 
> equating this regulatory necessity with one's freedom of choice to ingest poisons - is a humongous stretch.
> 
> you can manufacture and then ingest a lot of poisons - and there is the whole internet to educate you how to do that. You can do it if you chose to.
> Does not mean those particular and proven poisons should be allowed in an industry for massive consumption.
> It is exactly the area where we, collectively, and with grumpy regret, delegate some of our unlimited freedoms to the agency and expect it to maintain our safety and security in response.
> 
> Trans fats are neither necessary nor beneficial for the food you are eating. Same is pertinent for high fructose corn syrup - which should have been banned a decade ago 9 but the lobby is too potent).
> 
> Making trans fats a banner of freedom is ridiculous, to say the least.
> 
> it is strange that a ban on butter in NYC schools did not encounter such a fierce resistance - and the latter one is an example of exponential idiocy - because butter is not only healthy and natural, it looks like the nutritional science and medicine will make a full circle and return to the point of start - where all of us were eating butter, lard and natural vegetable oils only
Click to expand...


It isn't that I WANT trans fats in my food because I am already on the record in this thread that I do NOT want trans fats in my food.  But then again, trans fat is not a deadly substance.  It simply is not good for you in large quanties.  Which is why many manufacturers proudly advertise that their products contain no trans fats or make a point to advise the potential customer that the product is low sodium or whatever else is currently touted as healthy for us.

Given the government's track record for not thinking things through well, what is to say that whatever manufacturers substitute for trans fat to accomplish the same product characteristics will not turn out to be worse for us than the trans fat?  But it will be decades before studies are completed to verify that?

I put personal liberty high on my list of priorities in just about everything.  I have no problem with a requirement that I be advised that there is trans fat in a food product and I have no problem being advised that trans fat is not a desirable substance in our food and why.  I have a HUGE problem with all choice in such matters being taken away from me.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense to ban lead in children's furniture and toys, etc. because of the known hazards and because the general public cannot tell by looking whether paint has lead in it or not.  And it is in the public interest that this regulation come at the federal level just to make it easier for furniture and toy manufacturers to be able to sell their products across state lines.  It does not make sense to ban lead paint for all uses, however and the government oversteps is authority when it does so.  I have NO problem with a requirement that lead paint be properly labeled that it does contain lead.
> 
> But when even a city government presumes to tell people what size of an anotherwise perfectly legal soft drink they can buy, that is government overreach.  And a federal regulation banning trans fat is overreach and intrusion into our choices and liberties.
> 
> What's next?  Mandates of how much of any fat we can consume?  How much salt or sugar we may ingest.  Outlawing peanuts because somebody MIGHT be allergic?
> 
> Trans fat was once lauded as a healthier alternative to beef fat or other fat renderings.  And now it is the #1 villain in the culinary world.  But remember that coconut oil was once banned by the government in movie theaters because it contained saturated fat. And that wonderful amazing flavor we once loved about movie theater popcorn suddenly went away to be replaced by more 'healthy' oil and gobs of melted butter.
> 
> Now the evidence is in that the banned coconut oil back then was partially hydrogenated and contained trans fat which the government didn't address at all.  Pure virgin non hydrogenated coconut oil has no trans fat and now is deemed to be not so bad--it even has some health benefits.
> 
> Remember the government you may approve mandating what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot drink, is the same government that is giving us the wonderful invention of Obamacare.
> 
> I say let the government issue sufficient regulation to protect the food supply from contaminents as it can, and require honesty and integrity in labeling, and then let us make the choices about what we will eat and drink.  I feel more competent to do that for my own benefit than I trust the government to make such choices for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the influence of different substances on the human body is a constant research theme and as such is destined to ever change.
> That is why we have FDA to start with.
> To regulate and mandate the INDUSTRIES which produce food, nutritional supplements and medications.
> 
> That is the agency's sole purpose.
> 
> yes, I have a personal professional beef with the agency - because there are tons of decisions which are questionable at best.
> 
> But neither of those decisions is impacting the freedom of choice to eat, drink, even medicate oneself. Because, as I have stated before - the agency regulates the process of synthesis, maintenance and safe distribution of the substances which are done by businesses for profit.
> 
> equating this regulatory necessity with one's freedom of choice to ingest poisons - is a humongous stretch.
> 
> you can manufacture and then ingest a lot of poisons - and there is the whole internet to educate you how to do that. You can do it if you chose to.
> Does not mean those particular and proven poisons should be allowed in an industry for massive consumption.
> It is exactly the area where we, collectively, and with grumpy regret, delegate some of our unlimited freedoms to the agency and expect it to maintain our safety and security in response.
> 
> Trans fats are neither necessary nor beneficial for the food you are eating. Same is pertinent for high fructose corn syrup - which should have been banned a decade ago 9 but the lobby is too potent).
> 
> Making trans fats a banner of freedom is ridiculous, to say the least.
> 
> it is strange that a ban on butter in NYC schools did not encounter such a fierce resistance - and the latter one is an example of exponential idiocy - because butter is not only healthy and natural, it looks like the nutritional science and medicine will make a full circle and return to the point of start - where all of us were eating butter, lard and natural vegetable oils only
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't that I WANT trans fats in my food because I am already on the record in this thread that I do NOT want trans fats in my food.  But then again, trans fat is not a deadly substance.  It simply is not good for you in large quanties.  Which is why many manufacturers proudly advertise that their products contain no trans fats or make a point to advise the potential customer that the product is low sodium or whatever else is currently touted as healthy for us.
> 
> Given the government's track record for not thinking things through well, what is to say that whatever manufacturers substitute for trans fat to accomplish the same product characteristics will not turn out to be worse for us than the trans fat?  But it will be decades before studies are completed to verify that?
> 
> I put personal liberty high on my list of priorities in just about everything.  I have no problem with a requirement that I be advised that there is trans fat in a food product and I have no problem being advised that trans fat is not a desirable substance in our food and why.  I have a HUGE problem with all choice in such matters being taken away from me.
Click to expand...


And why do you want the "choice" to use a substance you don't want?

You prolly don't want heroin or crack either.  But do you want the "choice"?
This is the reconciliation I'm looking for.  Have yet to see it. 

And again -- the choice isn't "taken away from YOU" -- it would be taken away from the mass manufacturers of food.  That's a crucial difference you guys keep obfuscating to make a different point than the one on the table. 



> Given the government's track record for not thinking things through well, what is to say that whatever manufacturers substitute for trans fat to accomplish the same product characteristics will not turn out to be worse for us than the trans fat?  But it will be decades before studies are completed to verify that?



Of course, that's how it works.  And without the FDA -- or some institutional body as we've had since 1848 -- looking down the throat of these things, we'd be at the mercy of the corporations, who, we repeat again, exist to maximize their own profits, not to be concerned about public health.  Ask R.J. Reynolds how that works.

It never ceases to amaze me -- all this energy directed at holding the reins of government excess, and rightly so..... but when the corporations who own the government dabble in the same excess: crickets.  WtF is up with that?


----------



## Mustang

Pogo said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the FDA is considered an "enemy" too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, a constitutional amendment defending trans fats and the people who make trans fats is necessary.  Add that to Mark Levin's list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real question is... what does Alex Jones say about all this?
> 
> Oh wait -- we have this thread so we already know.
Click to expand...


And perhaps, while we're at it, we should check the Bible.  See what the Word has to say about trans fats.  And if it turns out it's harmful, we can pray the trans fats away.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> So ..... wtf?  "Do as I say, not as I do".  Thanks for playin'.



No, do what thou wilt...


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ..... wtf?  "Do as I say, not as I do".  Thanks for playin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, do what thou wilt...
Click to expand...


Thelemist.

Don't let Jeremiah hear you say that or he'll declare you to be Satan.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great start and analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> This analogy --- not so good.  Yes, the micromanagement of soft drink sizes is overreach, BUT trans fats are in no way comparable.  It's not a "choice" anyone wants-- as we said nobody goes shopping for trans fats, sprinkles them on their food or even advertises it.  For the same reason nobody advertises how many bug parts and rodent droppings are in their hot dogs.
> 
> Let's develop that --
> 
> >> Heres a taste of what you can expect to find on the table this Thanksgiving. Bon appétit!
> 
> Canned mushrooms can include more than 20 maggots of any size and 75 mites, per 100 grams. Same goes for 15 grams of dried mushrooms. No more than 10% of your mushrooms can be decomposed.
> 
> For every 100 grams of ground cinnamon, its OK to include 400 or more insect fragments (legs, heads, wings, thoraxes, etc.), and 22 or more rodent hairsa substance the FDA charmingly refers to as rodent filth.
> 
> Brussels sprouts can include 30 or more tiny insects, called aphids, per every 100 grams of veggie. << (source)
> 
> ..... Is the Big Bad fascist FDA depriving us of the right to eat more maggots?  Are my Constitutional rights to munch rodent hairs infringed here?  Who is the government to tell me I can't have insect thoraxes?
> 
> This is the absurd point we reach when we ride the ideological dogma into the ground.  Makes no sense.  Defending the right for a company we're not part of to inject toxins into food that we wouldn't eat anyway?  What the hell is the point?
> 
> Once AGAIN -- what the FDA is doing is proposing, with the requisite comment period, to take trans fats off the GRAS list.  ALL of what we eat is already regulated by the GRAS list, and as noted before, not nearly to the extent it should be (see Aspartame -- if only some of you so rabid about government abuse were equally vigilant about corporate abuse, but noooooo....)
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  This is the *FDA*.  The government has been overseeing safety standards in food and drugs *for over a century and a half*.  Because as you correctly noted at the top, institutional regulation is necessary.
> 
> Some people just need to pull their head out of the Rand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
Click to expand...


The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> As you noted, you can ingest a certain amount of arsenic too.  So now you're down to admitting no redeeming value and it's only a matter of degree.



Who put you in charge of deciding which kinds of food had "redeeming value?"  Why should anyone have to prove something they want to purchase has "redeeming value?"  The idea that we need to get permission from the government to consume whatever we want is fundamentally totalitarian.  It takes a special kind of servility to find that desirable.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
Click to expand...


What you have much sooner than that is e coli in your food, dysentery in your water, and planes crashing into each other because nobody's in charge.

I mean, get a GRIP already.  We don't live in a Doctor Doom comic book.  Marty earlier tried to equate trans fats with freedom of religion  -- y'all are exercising your right of argumentum ad absurdum here.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have much sooner than that is e coli in your food, dysentery in your water, and planes crashing into each other because nobody's in charge.
> 
> I mean, get a GRIP here.  We don't live in a Doctor Doom comic book.
Click to expand...


Amd with that post, my dear Pogo, you just demonstrated that you are not debating ethically yourself, you have either not read or blew off everything else I have posted on that subject, and you are being absolutely dishonest in what is being debated here.

But who knew that banning trans fat would remove e-coli from our food, make our water safe from dysentary, and prevent airplaines from crashing into each other?  I sure didn't know that.  But I'm sure it will be explained to me soon, yes?


----------



## bripat9643

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
Click to expand...


From Pogo's standpoint, liberty is merely a distraction created by the evil food companies so they can poison you.   Liberty is way down the list of statists priorities.  In fact they think it's something they need to do battle with.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you noted, you can ingest a certain amount of arsenic too.  So now you're down to admitting no redeeming value and it's only a matter of degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who put you in charge of deciding which kinds of food had "redeeming value?"  Why should anyone have to prove something they want to purchase has "redeeming value?"  The idea that we need to get permission from the government to consume whatever we want is fundamentally totalitarian.  It takes a special kind of servility to find that desirable.
Click to expand...


Once again Fingerchild -- the proposal would affect who MAKES food ... not who EATS it.

Again, some of y'all keep trying to morph this into an "individual liberty" issue.  It isn't.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Thelemist.
> 
> Don't let Jeremiah hear you say that or he'll declare you to be Satan.



She.

And Jeri already thinks I'm Satan.

I do nothing to discourage that view..


----------



## Pogo

It's also worth noting that the title of this thread is misleading -- it isn't "breaking" news at all, it's the opening of a commentary period (as we're doing here) on a proposal to take trans fats off the GRAS list.  The OP misstated this in the title.

Of course the OP isn't used to this topic -- he saw the word "trans" and started drooling and then it was all over...


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thelemist.
> 
> Don't let Jeremiah hear you say that or he'll declare you to be Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She.
> 
> And Jeri already thinks I'm Satan.
> 
> I do nothing to discourage that view..
Click to expand...


That, I agree with.   

'She', I stand corrected, thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thelemist.
> 
> Don't let Jeremiah hear you say that or he'll declare you to be Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She.
> 
> And Jeri already thinks I'm Satan.
> 
> I do nothing to discourage that view..
Click to expand...


LOL.  You too?   It didn't take long for me to acquire that distinction myself.

But the point I think several of us have been trying to make is that liberty must of necessity allow the right to be wrong or there is no liberty.  And the concept that the people are not smart enough to make their own choices is perhaps the first justification for totalitarian government.  They assume those smart enough to get themselves elected to or hired by the government are smart enough to dictate how the rest of us must live our lives.  For our own good of course since we are so weak and helpless without them being able to save us.


----------



## Mustang

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
Click to expand...


Balderdash.  I think it has more to do with conservatives continued attempts to confer constitutional rights on corporations ala "Corporations are people too, my friend." and Citizens United.

If this continues, the American people will find ourselves in the unenviable position of subjugating ourselves to corporations that can live forever (within the law, at least) merely by placing new members on their corporate boards when the older ones get older and die.  Imagine what that could do to any and all of our laws when corporate citizens can live forever when the rest of us mere mortals have a finite lifespan.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Pogo's standpoint, liberty is merely a distraction created by the evil food companies so they can poison you.   Liberty is way down the list of statists priorities.  In fact they think it's something they need to do battle with.
Click to expand...


Once again Fingerboy, a food company (or any company) is in business to make money  --- not to look out for the health of its customers.  Once again, ask Lorillard and Brown&Williamson and R.J. Reynolds how capitalism actually works.  That requires outside regulation for the public interest.  And we've been doing that, through the government, since 1848.

And now all of a sudden you want to plant your flag on trans fats of all things...


----------



## Pogo

Mustang said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Balderdash.  I think it has more to do with conservatives continued attempts to confer constitutional rights on corporations ala "Corporations are people too, my friend." and Citizens United.
> 
> If this continues, the American people will find ourselves in the unenviable position of subjugating ourselves to corporations that can live forever (within the law, at least) merely by placing new members on their corporate boards when the older ones get older and die.  Imagine what that could do to any and all of our laws when corporate citizens can live forever when the rest of us mere mortals have a finite lifespan.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  We live in a system where there is government control (over the people) and corporate control (over both government *and* people) and the myopics see only the former, while falling all over themselves to genuflect before the latter.  Makes no sense at all.


----------



## ClosedCaption

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotion in the face of bastards such as you who want to give government as much power over our lives as possible is not a bug, its a feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want a tissue?  A blankey?  You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions.  Dont be that girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that needs big daddy government to cuddle with you, put a blanket over you to keep you warm, and tell you that you are "special."
> 
> *There are no "facts" that banning these transfats will do anything to help anyone, its all based on studies and assumed "thoeretical avoided heart attacks" that have no real meanin*g.
Click to expand...


There are facts but you admitted that you chose to ignore them just because and never gave a reason why you ignore them.  Look, you read the facts and chose to ignore the facts.  That doesnt mean that there arent any facts no more than your dad ignoring you doesnt mean he doesnt have a daughter.


----------



## Spoonman

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem we have here, my dear friend Pogo, is a failure to communicate.
> 
> I have not at any time objected to NECESSARY regulation from government that ensures safety in our food supply that we cannot reasonably achieve on our own.  So yes, manufacturers should be required to use safe canning and other production methods, reasonable sanitation, and should be required to be honest and ethical in the labeling of their products.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between that and the government dictating to us what we must or must not buy, what size soft drink we will be permitted to purchase, or even whether we should be able to enjoy a product including trans fat if we enjoy that product.  I have no problem with the government issuing guidelines and warnings about certain products, but if you love liberty more than you trust Big Brother and the nanny state, it should be our choice what we will eat or drink.  For example,  I enjoy peanut butter.  Just because the same product could be fatal to my neighbor, there is no reason that I should not enjoy it and there is no justification for the government banning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
Click to expand...


Here's the way i see it. if liberty allows us the freedom to be stupid and elects someone like obama, why shouldn't we all so have the liberty to chow down on a few transfats?  it's not like a tub of margerine is going to screw us up any worse than he did.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a terrible analogy.  Some people are allergic to peanuts, not everybody  Transfats aren't selective that way.
> 
> Again I'll keep asking this until somebody comes up with an answer: what is the *point* of standing up for Big Food's right to inject a substance you personally wouldn't eat anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the way i see it. if liberty allows us the freedom to be stupid and elects someone like obama, why shouldn't we all so have the liberty to chow down on a few transfats?  it's not like a tub of margerine is going to screw us up any worse than he did.
Click to expand...


I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Matthew said:


> Kevin wouldn't bat a eye if a corporation took over a industry like cars, food or smart phones.
> 
> 
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that corperation was hiring slave labor
> He wouldn't bet a eye if it paid .50 cents per hour
> He wouldn't bat a eye if there's no food standards...Lets eat lead!
> He wouldn't bat a eye if that airplane flied too low
> He wouldn't bat a eye if people got warning from a hurricane or extreme weather event.
> He is anti-government.
> 
> His idea is of a world ran by pure capitalism and bad people that are out of control.



Are you lying, projecting, or just hallucinating?


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


>



Want to hang a point on that TK?

We stand ready.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ClosedCaption said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
Click to expand...


When do you push for the banning of cigarettes and alcohol?


----------



## Mustang

Pogo said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balderdash.  I think it has more to do with conservatives continued attempts to confer constitutional rights on corporations ala "Corporations are people too, my friend." and Citizens United.
> 
> If this continues, the American people will find ourselves in the unenviable position of subjugating ourselves to corporations that can live forever (within the law, at least) merely by placing new members on their corporate boards when the older ones get older and die.  Imagine what that could do to any and all of our laws when corporate citizens can live forever when the rest of us mere mortals have a finite lifespan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  We live in a system where there is government control (over the people) and corporate control (over both government *and* people) and the myopics see only the former, while falling all over themselves to genuflect before the latter.  Makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...


People should never find themselves in the position of being forced to allow corporations to continue to make dangerous products or engage in hazardous practices because corporations have constitutional rights simply BECAUSE humans can be killed an injured by such practices while corporations cannot die.

Or is the next conservative argument going to be something like this:  If corporations continue to engage in hazardous (to humans) practices, then people might stop buying their products and that's how the market is self-correcting...  

What idiocy.

All we would be doing is cheapening the value of human life even as we elevated the value of corporate citizenship which could easily hide behind the corporate structure.  I mean, how many citizenships is one corporation allowed to have when they can buy and sell other corporations and create a labyrinth of ownerships, partnerships etc?  

As much as I hate to gravitate to hyperbole and scare tactics, where would this likely lead us?  I ask because this really sounds very much like 1984 where consolidation takes place over time.  We could find ourselves in a future where human beings are dominated by one huge corporate citizen that can legally dominate all the puny corporeal citizens beneath it.  That was not the intention of the law when corporations were given legal rights.  Corporations are ultimately meant to be answerable to 'The People,' not the other way around. To that end, despite what conservatives may believe, we need gov't to act on the behalf of the citizenry because corporations are too powerful otherwise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jarlaxle said:


> When do you push for the banning of cigarettes and alcohol?



You ban alcohol, I'm grabbing my gun....

I'm just sayin...


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the way i see it. if liberty allows us the freedom to be stupid and elects someone like obama, why shouldn't we all so have the liberty to chow down on a few transfats?  it's not like a tub of margerine is going to screw us up any worse than he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?
Click to expand...


maggots work fine for bear grylls.  hey, in many countries they are a staple.  we can't put limits on someones sexual orientation but we can put limits on what they eat or drink.   we can't limit some one from having an abortion and taking a life, but we can limit someone from owning a gun.


----------



## Jarlaxle

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.
> 
> Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
> Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
> Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)
> 
> It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:
> 
> Abstract
> Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
> The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> *
Click to expand...


My uncle's father called them "coffin nails" as far back as WW2, as did most of the people he knew...you have no idea what you are blathering about.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to hang a point on that TK?
> 
> We stand ready.
Click to expand...


Try reading post 25.


----------



## bripat9643

Jarlaxle said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.
> 
> There is no harm in banning something that is harmful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When do you push for the banning of cigarettes and alcohol?
Click to expand...


How about chocolate and hard candy?  Pork rinds?  Fried chicken?  Steak?  Ice cream and chocolate cake?  Donuts?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The POINT is that liberty allows us to be stupid and make bad choices as well as to be smart and make good choices.   Take that away from the people and you have totalitarianism with nobody's unalienable rights safe from anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the way i see it. if liberty allows us the freedom to be stupid and elects someone like obama, why shouldn't we all so have the liberty to chow down on a few transfats?  it's not like a tub of margerine is going to screw us up any worse than he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?
Click to expand...


Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No It IS harmful open a book sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then you don't have to eat it*.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a rational argument.  We live in a system where you go to a grocery and exchange currency for your food; that means your choices are *confined* to what's in there.
> 
> For instance -- I like tomato soup and tomato sauce, but I don't want it with sugar in it.  That's not possible, because it's not for sale.  I DO have to take the sugar.
> 
> Not saying "regulate the sugar out", but I _*am*_ saying your idea that "you don't have to eat it" doesn't fly.
Click to expand...


Find one that meets your requirements, or make your own...it's quite simple.  Note: I would bet places like Whole Foods sell them with no sugar or salt added.  (heck, I can buy no-salt-added vegetables at Wal-Mart!)


----------



## bripat9643

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.
> 
> Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
> Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
> Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)
> 
> It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:
> 
> Abstract
> Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
> The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> *
Click to expand...


Nothing you posted proves what I said is wrong.  I've read newspaper editorials from the 1920s that refer to cigarettes as "coffin nails."   People knew they were bad for you long before the FDA even existed.  they also used to call alcohol "coffin varnish" before prohibition.

In their limitless arrogance, libturds believe that before they waged a campaign to get them outlawed, no one understood that their habits may be unhealthy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Quick, raise your hand if you've ever found a rodent (or any) hair in a chocolate bar?

Anyone? Bueller? No?

Well, how can that be? According the the links Pogo posted, there are 4 rodent hairs in 100 grams of chocolate, or about one and a quarter per 30 gram bar. Still, not a single person here has ever had a hair in their chocolate.

Why is this? 

Well, it's because the site Pogo linked to is deliberately lying. They are mixing elements to provide a false conclusion.

The FDA DOES allow rodent hairs and insect parts in coco beans - so what? When the beans are shipped from South America, there is an acceptable level of contamination allowed by the FDA. But that doesn't mean it's in your chocolate. The beans are rinsed, ground, and brewed like coffee, leaving a liquid product that is used in all further products. There are zero rodent hairs or insect parts in this, but that's not how the sleazy web sites present it, is it?

The point here is that reactionary claims are nearly always false, nearly always using dishonest presentation of factoids, as the urban legend about chocolate does. The same is true in regards to trans-fats, what demagogues present is hyperbole, with at BEST out of context snippets of fact - but often based on complete fabrication.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodium nitrates aren't banned in foods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they're not.  As noted before the FDA doesn't do its job enough.  We already mentioned Aspartame twice; nobody jumped up to defend that.
Click to expand...


We were all too busy laughing at you.



> Personally I screen ingredient labels to avoid nitrates, but if they were to start calling it resplatte (anagram of _saltpeter_) -- I wouldn't know, would I?
> 
> That's where regulation comes in.



What regulations govern the running of the looney bin you are playing hooky from?


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Jarlaxle said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.
> 
> Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
> Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
> Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)
> 
> It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:
> 
> Abstract
> Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
> The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My uncle's father called them "coffin nails" as far back as WW2, as did most of the people he knew...you have no idea what you are blathering about.
Click to expand...


*Prove it.  I quote directly from the NIH and you have a story about your uncle's father.   Do you even know who James Duke was before my post?  Answer the question, don't give me stupid stories handed down by dead people.*


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the way i see it. if liberty allows us the freedom to be stupid and elects someone like obama, why shouldn't we all so have the liberty to chow down on a few transfats?  it's not like a tub of margerine is going to screw us up any worse than he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
Click to expand...


And here's post 25:


TemplarKormac said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
Click to expand...


You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?

This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_

You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

bripat9643 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  What an idiot.  Why do you think cigarettes have been called "coffin nails" since the 19th Century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.
> 
> Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
> Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
> Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)
> 
> It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:
> 
> Abstract
> Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
> The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you posted proves what I said is wrong.  I've read newspaper editorials from the 1920s that refer to cigarettes as "coffin nails."   People knew they were bad for you long before the FDA even existed.  they also used to call alcohol "coffin varnish" before prohibition.
> 
> In their limitless arrogance, libturds believe that before they waged a campaign to get them outlawed, no one understood that their habits may be unhealthy.
Click to expand...


*Prove it.  You stupid lazy people love to write shit and then don't/won't back it up.  Lazy.  Lazy.  Lazy.*


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
Click to expand...


Same logic gun grabbers use when they say, we arent BANNING guns, you just have to pay a $1000 tax every year to own one. Its an end-around.


----------



## Jarlaxle

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are absolutely wrong.  In the late 19th century James B. Duke was the "father" of the American cigarette and formed the American Tobacco Company.
> 
> Prior to forming tobacco into cigarettes his company molded tobacco into loaves and sold it door to door as a healthy daily food for the entire family, including children.
> Bold Entrepreneur: A Life of James B. Duke
> Carolina Academic Pr (March 2003)
> 
> It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:
> 
> Abstract
> Cigarettes and the US Public Health Service in the 1950s.
> The conclusion of the United States Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health in 1964 that excessive cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is cited as the major turning point for public health action against cigarettes. But the surgeon general and US Public Health Service (PHS) scientists had concluded as early as 1957 that smoking was a cause of lung cancer, indeed, "the principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer." Throughout the 1950s, however, the PHS rejected further tobacco-related public health actions, such as placing warning labels on cigarettes or creating educational programs for schools. Instead, the agency continued to gather information and provided occasional assessments of the evidence as it came available. It was not until pressure mounted from outside the PHS in the early 1960s that more substantive action was taken. Earlier action was not taken because of the way in which PHS scientists (particularly those within the National Institutes of Health) and administrators viewed their roles in relation to science and public health.
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My uncle's father called them "coffin nails" as far back as WW2, as did most of the people he knew...you have no idea what you are blathering about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Prove it.  I quote directly from the NIH and you have a story about your uncle's father.   Do you even know who James Duke was before my post?  Answer the question, don't give me stupid stories handed down by dead people.*
Click to expand...


Are you stoned?  Note: he's alive and well, age 85. (He stopped smoking 40+ years ago.)

And *please stop yelling.*


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quick, raise your hand if you've ever found a rodent (or any) hair in a chocolate bar?
> 
> Anyone? Bueller? No?
> 
> Well, how can that be? According the the links Pogo posted, there are 4 rodent hairs in 100 grams of chocolate, or about one and a quarter per 30 gram bar. Still, not a single person here has ever had a hair in their chocolate.
> 
> Why is this?
> 
> Well, it's because the site Pogo linked to is deliberately lying. They are mixing elements to provide a false conclusion.
> 
> The FDA DOES allow rodent hairs and insect parts in coco beans - so what? When the beans are shipped from South America, there is an acceptable level of contamination allowed by the FDA. But that doesn't mean it's in your chocolate. The beans are rinsed, ground, and brewed like coffee, leaving a liquid product that is used in all further products. There are zero rodent hairs or insect parts in this, but that's not how the sleazy web sites present it, is it?
> 
> The point here is that reactionary claims are nearly always false, nearly always using dishonest presentation of factoids, as the urban legend about chocolate does. The same is true in regards to trans-fats, what demagogues present is hyperbole, with at BEST out of context snippets of fact - but often based on complete fabrication.



I'll turn this one over to Captain Obvious.  Cap'm?

Ahem, thank you. The point is not that there are rodent hairs; the point is that the evil fascist jackboot big bad FDA *limits *how much can be in there.  WHO has a problem with them doing that?

Thanks, Cap'm.  

Duh.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Then you don't have to eat it*.  That's your personal choice.  That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.
> 
> I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a rational argument.  We live in a system where you go to a grocery and exchange currency for your food; that means your choices are *confined* to what's in there.
> 
> For instance -- I like tomato soup and tomato sauce, but I don't want it with sugar in it.  That's not possible, because it's not for sale.  I DO have to take the sugar.
> 
> Not saying "regulate the sugar out", but I _*am*_ saying your idea that "you don't have to eat it" doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find one that meets your requirements, or make your own...it's quite simple.  Note: I would bet places like Whole Foods sell them with no sugar or salt added.  (heck, I can buy no-salt-added vegetables at Wal-Mart!)
Click to expand...


Nope, they don't.  Don't think I haven't been looking for years.  It doesn't exist.

Now extrapolate the logic trotted out here: why is my choice for sugar-free tomato products being infringed -- and who is infringing it?   Think about it.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sodium nitrates aren't banned in foods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they're not.  As noted before the FDA doesn't do its job enough.  We already mentioned Aspartame twice; nobody jumped up to defend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were all too busy laughing at you.
Click to expand...


Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.

Lightweight.  Come armed next time.



Jarlaxle said:


> Personally I screen ingredient labels to avoid nitrates, but if they were to start calling it resplatte (anagram of _saltpeter_) -- I wouldn't know, would I?
> 
> That's where regulation comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What regulations govern the running of the looney bin you are playing hooky from?
Click to expand...


See above.  Ad hominem, subtract credibilium.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same logic gun grabbers use when they say, we arent BANNING guns, you just have to pay a $1000 tax every year to own one. Its an end-around.
Click to expand...


That analogy doesn't work either -- nobody's proposing a $1000 tax on trans fats.  The FDA action if it happens would be on the food *producers *(in your analogy the gun manufacturer) --- not the end user.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I'll turn this one over to Captain Obvious.  Cap'm?
> 
> Ahem, thank you. The point is not that there are rodent hairs; the point is that the evil fascist jackboot big bad FDA *limits *how much can be in there.  WHO has a problem with them doing that?
> 
> Thanks, Cap'm.
> 
> Duh.



Yet the FDA is meaningless here, because contamination of the beans is utterly irrelevant to the final product. The FDA does NOTHING to make chocolate safer.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic gun grabbers use when they say, we arent BANNING guns, you just have to pay a $1000 tax every year to own one. Its an end-around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't work either -- nobody's proposing a $1000 tax on trans fats.  The FDA action if it happens would be on the food *producers *(in your analogy the gun manufacturer) --- not the end user.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they're not.  As noted before the FDA doesn't do its job enough.  We already mentioned Aspartame twice; nobody jumped up to defend that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were all too busy laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.
> 
> Lightweight.  Come armed next time.
Click to expand...


Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it.  Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.  

How's that for justification?


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same logic gun grabbers use when they say, we arent BANNING guns, you just have to pay a $1000 tax every year to own one. Its an end-around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't work either -- nobody's proposing a $1000 tax on trans fats.  The FDA action if it happens would be on the food *producers *(in your analogy the gun manufacturer) --- not the end user.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.
Click to expand...


Again -- ad hominem, subtract credibilium.  The logic stands unless you can refute it.  Ad hominem doesn't.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were all too busy laughing at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.
> 
> Lightweight.  Come armed next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it.  Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
Click to expand...


So "diet" is the same thing as "aspartame"...

Thanks for that reminder of why you're Finger-boy.


----------



## martybegan

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy doesn't work either -- nobody's proposing a $1000 tax on trans fats.  The FDA action if it happens would be on the food *producers *(in your analogy the gun manufacturer) --- not the end user.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again -- ad hominem, subtract credibilium.  The logic stands unless you can refute it.  Ad hominem doesn't.
Click to expand...


You suck off goats. Now THATS an ad hominem. Calling out your 1) ignornace or 2) idoicy is not really.


----------



## FJO

Obviously, these people at the FDA are not Jewish or they never gave themselves the pleasure to taste succulent and delicious food dripping with heavenly-tasting fat.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jewish-elders-lift-6000year-ham-ban,992/

Somebody should tell them that it is better to eat fat and die at the age of 80 years than eat crap and live to be 81.


----------



## Uncensored2008

martybegan said:


> You suck off goats. Now THATS an ad hominem. Calling out your 1) ignornace or 2) idoicy is not really.



Dayum....

Pogo, *THAT'S* not the way you're supposed to _milk_ them...


----------



## g5000

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*



And yet the FDA is not banning nicotine.

Nor nitrites.  Nor sulfites. Nor high fructose corn syrup.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a rational argument.  We live in a system where you go to a grocery and exchange currency for your food; that means your choices are *confined* to what's in there.
> 
> For instance -- I like tomato soup and tomato sauce, but I don't want it with sugar in it.  That's not possible, because it's not for sale.  I DO have to take the sugar.
> 
> Not saying "regulate the sugar out", but I _*am*_ saying your idea that "you don't have to eat it" doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find one that meets your requirements, or make your own...it's quite simple.  Note: I would bet places like Whole Foods sell them with no sugar or salt added.  (heck, I can buy no-salt-added vegetables at Wal-Mart!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they don't.  Don't think I haven't been looking for years.  It doesn't exist.
> 
> Now extrapolate the logic trotted out here: why is my choice for sugar-free tomato products being infringed -- and who is infringing it?   Think about it.
Click to expand...


Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it.  (If there were, it would be made.)  If you care, you will make your own.  If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.


----------



## g5000

Jarlaxle said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the FDA banned nitrites?  Nope.  Let's not piss off the meatpacking industry (Chicago).
> 
> Has the FDA banned sulfites?  Nope.  Again, let's not piss off the meatpacking industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the meatpacking industry: most WINES contain sulfites!
Click to expand...


Indeed.  We can add California, New York, Washington, and Oregon to the list.


----------



## g5000

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *It wasn't until the 1950s (that's called the 20th C. in case you have literacy problems) that warnings about the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking started to appear:*



Bullshit.

Here is a 1940 German study connecting lung cancer to smoking: http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/bwho/v84n6/v84n6a21.pdf

The English translation starts on page 4.



> A third statistically proven fact was that 95% of patients with lung or throat cancer were heavy smokers.





> These observations made the carcinogenic effect of tobacco fairly obvious.  However, this hypothesis was based on clinical observations, and needed to be proved experimentally.
> 
> Over the past few years we have provided such proof through a series of experimental studies and present a short overview here.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find one that meets your requirements, or make your own...it's quite simple.  Note: I would bet places like Whole Foods sell them with no sugar or salt added.  (heck, I can buy no-salt-added vegetables at Wal-Mart!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they don't.  Don't think I haven't been looking for years.  It doesn't exist.
> 
> Now extrapolate the logic trotted out here: why is my choice for sugar-free tomato products being infringed -- and who is infringing it?   Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it.  (If there were, it would be made.)  If you care, you will make your own.  If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Captain Point-Sail-Over-Head.


----------



## Pogo

g5000 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But back to the trans fat issue.
> 
> In time all truths are revealed.
> 
> We found out that both of these products were bad for us thanks to the federal gov't:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the FDA is not banning nicotine.
> 
> Nor nitrites.  Nor sulfites. Nor high fructose corn syrup.
Click to expand...


Nor aspartame, nor cottonseed oil, nor GMOs, nor rBST.

This thread is like watching a flood levee spring several leaks and then hearing wanton wags complain that part of the levee is still holding.


----------



## Vox

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were all too busy laughing at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.
> 
> Lightweight.  Come armed next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
Click to expand...


Not true.


----------



## Pogo

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again -- ad hominem, subtract credibilium.  The logic stands unless you can refute it.  Ad hominem doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suck off goats. Now THATS an ad hominem. Calling out your 1) ignornace or 2) idoicy is not really.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm afraid it is but then again you don't even know what sarcasm is so consider the source.  Point remains, you offered no refutation, therefore it stands.


----------



## Vox

For the yealling guy - harm of tobacco was known even to American Indians who were chewing it - the connection between it's chewing and cancers of the oral cavity.

and long before the warning appeared on the cigarette packs.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.
> 
> Lightweight.  Come armed next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...


Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving.  He also implies here that people _must _drink soda in the first place.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're being humorous but if not the answer is -- why shouldn't we have the "liberty" to chow down on more maggots and larvae and rodent feces and mold and mad cow disease?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wise move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
Click to expand...


It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?


----------



## Vox

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find one that meets your requirements, or make your own...it's quite simple.  Note: I would bet places like Whole Foods sell them with no sugar or salt added.  (heck, I can buy no-salt-added vegetables at Wal-Mart!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they don't.  Don't think I haven't been looking for years.  It doesn't exist.
> 
> Now extrapolate the logic trotted out here: why is my choice for sugar-free tomato products being infringed -- and who is infringing it?   Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it.  (If there were, it would be made.)  If you care, you will make your own.  If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.
Click to expand...


no, sugar is simply a preservative.

BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.

when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.

Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.


----------



## Vox

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?
Click to expand...


you are wrong. FDA is regulating what food industry can use for the production of food, but you can produce your transfats at home if you like them - which you do not, since they neither taste better, nor are available naturally.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Vox said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they don't.  Don't think I haven't been looking for years.  It doesn't exist.
> 
> Now extrapolate the logic trotted out here: why is my choice for sugar-free tomato products being infringed -- and who is infringing it?   Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it.  (If there were, it would be made.)  If you care, you will make your own.  If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, sugar is simply a preservative.
> 
> BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.
> 
> when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.
> 
> Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.
Click to expand...


No, sugar allows them to use lower-grade tomatoes!

Again: if there were a market for it, it would be made!


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving.  He also implies here that people _must _drink soda in the first place.
Click to expand...


diet soda is actually much worse than the usual one. If there is no choice otherwise, it is better to drink a standard one, not the diet one.

if you really, really, really  NEED to drink soda.

It's a cultural thing - if you grow up not drinking it, you never acquire the taste for it. I drink water only, and preferably not carbonated - not becasue I am so anti-soda, but because I do not consider it tasty. If you want your kids eat healthy - never ever expose them to junk food - and they won't develop the taste for it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Vox said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are wrong. FDA is regulating what food industry can use for the production of food, but you can produce your transfats at home if you like them - which you do not, since they neither taste better, nor are available naturally.
Click to expand...


I'd like a little more detail than just 'you're wrong.' How can the government just 'ban' something or anything it wills? This ultimately ends with the consumer, and it applies to the consumer just as it does to the producer.


----------



## FJO

Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".

So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.

So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when should the government tell people what to eat? Since when should government dictate our choices? Wheres the freedom to make one's own choices based on there better judgement or lack thereof? Oh, but you have to resort to argumentum in terrorem arguments to make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It strikes me odd that a woman would vehemently demand that the government stay out of her body and leave her reproductive rights alone, but insist that it tell people what to do as far as their dietary habits are concerned. So what's with the double standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?
Click to expand...


No more than the food companies' failure to make a sugar-free tomato sauce is telling me what I can and can't eat.  As somebody noted -- I could make my own.  Just as you could make your own transfats.  Regardless of the fact that given countless invitations, nobody has come up with any reason you would _*want *_to do that, thereby making this cause utterly pointless.

What you claimed was "Since when should the government tell people what to eat?".  It doesn't.  Why is your position so weak that you have to twist it into something it isn't?  Better question: since it is so weak, isn't it time to abandon it?  Still better question: *what would you miss personally about trans fats?*


----------



## Vox

Jarlaxle said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it.  (If there were, it would be made.)  If you care, you will make your own.  If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, sugar is simply a preservative.
> 
> BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.
> 
> when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.
> 
> Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sugar allows them to use lower-grade tomatoes!
> 
> Again: if there were a market for it, it would be made!
Click to expand...


maybe. and of course, if the market can be made, it will be - nothing wrong with that, but one should not consider regulating artificial market to be an offence on the Constitutional rights.
 It is a business often involving cheating the consumer - therefore I don't understand the outrage on slapping the greedy businesses when they should be slapped. it is long overdue.


----------



## bripat9643

Vox said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning: you have no answer and no argument for Aspartame.
> 
> Lightweight.  Come armed next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...


Sure it is.  They may not die right away, but they will die an early death.  Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.


----------



## Vox

FJO said:


> Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".
> 
> So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.
> 
> So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.



nah, eggs have been vindicated.
 It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving.  He also implies here that people _must _drink soda in the first place.
Click to expand...


Your belief in your ability to reason is grossly inflated.  I never implied any such thing.  

Consuming large amounts of sugar will eventually kill a diabetic.  Why do you supposed doctors tell them not to eat sugar?


----------



## FJO

There is no need for government to step in and ban food of any kind.

In the last 30 or so years smokers quit smoking because they felt compelled to do so, seeing not only the evidence of cancer caused by smoking, but also realizing that their stench offended people around them.

When people see that eating fat others around them, they will stop eating fat, just as smokers quit smoking.


----------



## Vox

bripat9643 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aspartame needs an argument?  Here's one.  *Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. * Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.
> 
> How's that for justification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  They may not die right away, but they will die an early death.  Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.
Click to expand...


no, it is not.

even diabetics can eat some sugar, if other conditions are preserved.

Do not take it as an absolution and go eat cake and soda if you are diabetic. 
But if your HgbA1C is lower than 6, you can slurp some soda time to time to make the grass greener on your side


----------



## bripat9643

Vox said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving.  He also implies here that people _must _drink soda in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> diet soda is actually much worse than the usual one. If there is no choice otherwise, it is better to drink a standard one, not the diet one.
> 
> if you really, really, really  NEED to drink soda.
> 
> It's a cultural thing - if you grow up not drinking it, you never acquire the taste for it. I drink water only, and preferably not carbonated - not becasue I am so anti-soda, but because I do not consider it tasty. If you want your kids eat healthy - never ever expose them to junk food - and they won't develop the taste for it.
Click to expand...


How is diet soda worse than sodas with sugar in them?


----------



## bripat9643

Vox said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  They may not die right away, but they will die an early death.  Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, it is not.
> 
> even diabetics can eat some sugar, if other conditions are preserved.
> 
> Do not take it as an absolution and go eat cake and soda if you are diabetic.
> But if your HgbA1C is lower than 6, you can slurp some soda time to time to make the grass greener on your side
Click to expand...


You can also eat strychnine if you don't eat too much of it.  I knew your explanation was going to be the usual idiocy.


----------



## Vox

FJO said:


> There is no need for government to step in and ban food of any kind.
> 
> In the last 30 or so years smokers quit smoking because they felt compelled to do so, seeing not only the evidence of cancer caused by smoking, but also realizing that their stench offended people around them.
> 
> When people see that eating fat others around them, they will stop eating fat, just as smokers quit smoking.



it is NOT THE FOOD !!!!!

it is food ingredients which were introduced by food industry for the reason of price.
it can and should be regulated and prohibited if proven harmful.
Which it was.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's post 25:
> 
> 
> You don't see the fundamental error you're _still _making here?
> 
> This has nothing to do with "what you can eat".  The FDA has no jusridiction over that.  Never did.  This proposal is about _*what you can put in food for public consumption if you're a food company.*_
> 
> You guys keep trying to make this into some kind of "personal liberty" issue.  It STILL isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more than the food companies' failure to make a sugar-free tomato sauce is telling me what I can and can't eat.  As somebody noted -- I could make my own.  Just as you could make your own transfats.  Regardless of the fact that given countless invitations, nobody has come up with any reason you would _*want *_to do that, thereby making this cause utterly pointless.
> 
> What you claimed was "Since when should the government tell people what to eat?".  It doesn't.  Why is your position so weak that you have to twist it into something it isn't?  Better question: since it is so weak, isn't it time to abandon it?  Still better question: *what would you miss personally about trans fats?*
Click to expand...


How am I twisting my position? Now you resort to ad baculum to attack my position instead of refuting it. 

I don't make these claims lightly. There have been studies linking certain natural trans fats found in beef and milk products to abating risk factors for heart disease, combating obesity, and diabetes. This study conducted in 2008 by a professor at The University of Alberta shows that trans vaccenic acid (VA) has certain health benefits. What would I miss you ask? This:

Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving.  He also implies here that people _must _drink soda in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> diet soda is actually much worse than the usual one. If there is no choice otherwise, it is better to drink a standard one, not the diet one.
> 
> if you really, really, really  NEED to drink soda.
> 
> It's a cultural thing - if you grow up not drinking it, you never acquire the taste for it. I drink water only, and preferably not carbonated - not becasue I am so anti-soda, but because I do not consider it tasty. If you want your kids eat healthy - never ever expose them to junk food - and they won't develop the taste for it.
Click to expand...


Readily agreed.  I particularly avoid anything that says "sugar-free" unless I can establish that whatever sweetener is in there is natural.  Considering the way aspartame and saccharin sneaked through, what the FDA does is little more than a finger in the dyke.  And a small one at that.  Then we have people complaining that there's a finger at all infringing the rights of the poor leak.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more than the food companies' failure to make a sugar-free tomato sauce is telling me what I can and can't eat.  As somebody noted -- I could make my own.  Just as you could make your own transfats.  Regardless of the fact that given countless invitations, nobody has come up with any reason you would _*want *_to do that, thereby making this cause utterly pointless.
> 
> What you claimed was "Since when should the government tell people what to eat?".  It doesn't.  Why is your position so weak that you have to twist it into something it isn't?  Better question: since it is so weak, isn't it time to abandon it?  Still better question: *what would you miss personally about trans fats?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I twisting my position? Now you resort to ad baculum to attack my position instead of refuting it.
> 
> I don't make these claims lightly. There have been studies linking certain natural trans fats found in beef and milk products to abating risk factors for heart disease, combating obesity, and diabetes. This study conducted in 2008 by a professor at The University of Alberta shows that trans vaccenic acid (VA) has certain health benefits. What would I miss you ask? This:
> 
> Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows
Click to expand...


_You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_



Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.


----------



## Pogo

FJO said:


> There is no need for government to step in and ban food of any kind.
> 
> In the last 30 or so years smokers quit smoking because they felt compelled to do so, seeing not only the evidence of cancer caused by smoking, but also realizing that their stench offended people around them.
> 
> When people see that eating fat others around them, they will stop eating fat, just as smokers quit smoking.



Once again --- this is not about "banning food".  It's about taking trans fats off the GRAS list.  That list *already regulates* what food makers can put in there.  The GRAS list is nothing new.

You can't bitch about trans fats being pulled from the list unless you want to dump the whole GRAS list.  At which point bring on the carcinogens and mutations and molds and slow and fast poisons.  If your basis is ideological -- that's what you have to do.

Good luck with that.


----------



## FJO

Vox said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".
> 
> So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.
> 
> So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, eggs have been vindicated.
> It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays
Click to expand...


So, let me be the first to predict a new scientific study within a year or so, proving that eggs are bad for you. And sugar and milk and bread, depending on where and how they are classified today.

And let me go out on the limb and include carbs. Just a matter of time and/or how desperately the scientist needs funds to condemn the food of his choice.

Scientists, whose occupation appears to be nothing more than condemning/vindicating foods, depending how the wind blows, here is a hint: It has been a long time since tomatoes  have been called poison.

Ain't it time to release your wisdom on the unwashed, regarding this vegetable, which you define as fruit?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more than the food companies' failure to make a sugar-free tomato sauce is telling me what I can and can't eat.  As somebody noted -- I could make my own.  Just as you could make your own transfats.  Regardless of the fact that given countless invitations, nobody has come up with any reason you would _*want *_to do that, thereby making this cause utterly pointless.
> 
> What you claimed was "Since when should the government tell people what to eat?".  It doesn't.  Why is your position so weak that you have to twist it into something it isn't?  Better question: since it is so weak, isn't it time to abandon it?  Still better question: *what would you miss personally about trans fats?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I twisting my position? Now you resort to ad baculum to attack my position instead of refuting it.
> 
> I don't make these claims lightly. There have been studies linking certain natural trans fats found in beef and milk products to abating risk factors for heart disease, combating obesity, and diabetes. This study conducted in 2008 by a professor at The University of Alberta shows that trans vaccenic acid (VA) has certain health benefits. What would I miss you ask? This:
> 
> Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.
Click to expand...


You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.

What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.


----------



## Political Junky

Trans fat goes directly to the arteries. It destroys good cholesterol while increasing bad cholesterol.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I twisting my position? Now you resort to ad baculum to attack my position instead of refuting it.
> 
> I don't make these claims lightly. There have been studies linking certain natural trans fats found in beef and milk products to abating risk factors for heart disease, combating obesity, and diabetes. This study conducted in 2008 by a professor at The University of Alberta shows that trans vaccenic acid (VA) has certain health benefits. What would I miss you ask? This:
> 
> Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Seriously.
Click to expand...


To tell the truth I didn't even click your link.  I just thought your logic was priceless.
I also think your or my clicking on selected internet links we think will score points on a message board is not quiiiiiiiiite on a par with health agencies staffed by actually qualified people who spend their work day doing this.

By the way, if it's natural, it's specifically NOT included in the FDA action.  So there goes that.  All you've got left is the bad (synthetic) stuff.  So again since you effectively didn't answer the question-- what will you miss?

As far as who's "anti-science" -- that would be FJO above.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell the truth I didn't even click your link.  I just thought your logic was priceless.
> I also think your or my clicking on selected internet links we think will score points on a message board is not quiiiiiiiiite on a par with health agencies staffed by actually qualified people who spend their work day doing this.
> 
> By the way, if it's natural, it's specifically NOT included in the FDA action.  So there goes that.
Click to expand...


Actually this is peer reviewed science you're turning your nose up at. As far as the FDA is concerned, the term 'trans fats' is all inclusive. So there goes that. As imprecise and inefficient as government is, do you think they'd really pay attention to what is or isn't natural? Your faith in bureaucracy is misplaced.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To tell the truth I didn't even click your link.  I just thought your logic was priceless.
> I also think your or my clicking on selected internet links we think will score points on a message board is not quiiiiiiiiite on a par with health agencies staffed by actually qualified people who spend their work day doing this.
> 
> By the way, if it's natural, it's specifically NOT included in the FDA action.  So there goes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually this is peer reviewed science you're turning your nose up at. As far as the FDA is concerned, the term 'trans fats' is all inclusive. So there goes that. As imprecise and inefficient as government is, do you think they'd really pay attention to what is or isn't natural? Your faith in bureaucracy is misplaced.
Click to expand...


There goes what?  Again we quote from the article in post #1:

>> If the agency's plan is successful, the heart-clogging oils would be considered food additives and could not be used in food unless officially approved.

*The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products.* <<

Voilà.  Your faith in bureaucracy is restored.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To tell the truth I didn't even click your link.  I just thought your logic was priceless.
> I also think your or my clicking on selected internet links we think will score points on a message board is not quiiiiiiiiite on a par with health agencies staffed by actually qualified people who spend their work day doing this.
> 
> By the way, if it's natural, it's specifically NOT included in the FDA action.  So there goes that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is peer reviewed science you're turning your nose up at. As far as the FDA is concerned, the term 'trans fats' is all inclusive. So there goes that. As imprecise and inefficient as government is, do you think they'd really pay attention to what is or isn't natural? Your faith in bureaucracy is misplaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There goes what?  Again we quote from the article in post #1:
> 
> >> If the agency's plan is successful, the heart-clogging oils would be considered food additives and could not be used in food unless officially approved.
> 
> *The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products.* <<
> 
> Voilà.  Your faith in bureaucracy is restored.
Click to expand...


Like I said. The inefficiency and imprecision of government will prevent them from telling the difference, Pogo. It's all the same to them in the end. This has less to do with banning trans fats than it does with government issuing dictates on personal responsibility. That is what it essentially boils down to.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is peer reviewed science you're turning your nose up at. As far as the FDA is concerned, the term 'trans fats' is all inclusive. So there goes that. As imprecise and inefficient as government is, do you think they'd really pay attention to what is or isn't natural? Your faith in bureaucracy is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There goes what?  Again we quote from the article in post #1:
> 
> >> If the agency's plan is successful, the heart-clogging oils would be considered food additives and could not be used in food unless officially approved.
> 
> *The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products.* <<
> 
> Voilà.  Your faith in bureaucracy is restored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said. The inefficiency and imprecision of government will prevent them from telling the difference, Pogo. It's all the same to them in the end. This has less to do with banning trans fats than it does with government issuing dictates on personal responsibility. That is what it essentially boils down to.
Click to expand...


If you read the bolded part -- they already DID tell the difference.  Now you're saying you don't believe the words right in front of your eyes.  There's no argument for that.

FDA's purpose isn't to issue gubbamint dictates; it's to QC food and drugs.  It may be nice and melodramatic to imagine conspiracy everywhere but there's also the real world.

"boils down to" ...


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There goes what?  Again we quote from the article in post #1:
> 
> >> If the agency's plan is successful, the heart-clogging oils would be considered food additives and could not be used in food unless officially approved.
> 
> *The ruling does not affect foods with naturally occurring trans fats, which are present in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products.* <<
> 
> Voilà.  Your faith in bureaucracy is restored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. The inefficiency and imprecision of government will prevent them from telling the difference, Pogo. It's all the same to them in the end. This has less to do with banning trans fats than it does with government issuing dictates on personal responsibility. That is what it essentially boils down to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the bolded part -- they already DID tell the difference.  Now you're saying you don't believe the words right in front of your eyes.  There's no argument for that.
> 
> FDA's purpose isn't to issue gubbamint dictates; it's to QC food and drugs.  It may be nice and melodramatic to imagine conspiracy everywhere but there's also the real world.
> 
> "boils down to" ...
Click to expand...


You're mistaken.  Bureaucrats don't build their careers by leaving good enough alone.  Getting their names on some new massive pile of regulations is how they get promoted.  Government agencies can't stop issuing new regulations.  The people who work in them need something to do.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. The inefficiency and imprecision of government will prevent them from telling the difference, Pogo. It's all the same to them in the end. This has less to do with banning trans fats than it does with government issuing dictates on personal responsibility. That is what it essentially boils down to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the bolded part -- they already DID tell the difference.  Now you're saying you don't believe the words right in front of your eyes.  There's no argument for that.
> 
> FDA's purpose isn't to issue gubbamint dictates; it's to QC food and drugs.  It may be nice and melodramatic to imagine conspiracy everywhere but there's also the real world.
> 
> "boils down to" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're mistaken.  Bureaucrats don't build their careers by leaving good enough alone.  Getting their names on some new massive pile of regulations is how they get promoted.  Government agencies can't stop issuing new regulations.  The people who work in them need something to do.
Click to expand...


Uh - really Fingerboy?

Pop quiz: Whose name is on this proposal?


----------



## RandallFlagg

novasteve said:


> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass



Sons a bitches come for MY frozen pizzas, they gonna get a load of buckshot!


----------



## paulitician

Wise up dummies. You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?


----------



## Mustang

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I twisting my position? Now you resort to ad baculum to attack my position instead of refuting it.
> 
> I don't make these claims lightly. There have been studies linking certain natural trans fats found in beef and milk products to abating risk factors for heart disease, combating obesity, and diabetes. This study conducted in 2008 by a professor at The University of Alberta shows that trans vaccenic acid (VA) has certain health benefits. What would I miss you ask? This:
> 
> Natural Trans Fats Have Health Benefits, New Study Shows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.
> 
> What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.
Click to expand...


If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic.  If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.


----------



## bendog

RandallFlagg said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sons a bitches come for MY frozen pizzas, they gonna get a load of buckshot!
Click to expand...


I'm eating microwave popcorn now.  Bite ME FDA.  (-:


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?



Riiiiiiiiight, this country will never be free until I can ingest all the carcinogens and rodent feces and salmonella I want, dammit!

Fascist.


----------



## Foxfyre

FJO said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FJO said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".
> 
> So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.
> 
> So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, eggs have been vindicated.
> It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me be the first to predict a new scientific study within a year or so, proving that eggs are bad for you. And sugar and milk and bread, depending on where and how they are classified today.
> 
> And let me go out on the limb and include carbs. Just a matter of time and/or how desperately the scientist needs funds to condemn the food of his choice.
> 
> Scientists, whose occupation appears to be nothing more than condemning/vindicating foods, depending how the wind blows, here is a hint: It has been a long time since tomatoes  have been called poison.
> 
> Ain't it time to release your wisdom on the unwashed, regarding this vegetable, which you define as fruit?
Click to expand...


Actually scientific knowledge informs us that a tomato is indeed a fruit.

Common sense, however, informs us not to put it into a fruit salad.

But I too push bqck hqrd on any assumption that ANYBODY in government has my welfare or best interests at heart about much of anything.  Including the foods that I choose to eat.  And it is really scary how many of our friends here do believe that government is trustworthy to dictate to us what our diet must be.

And it is worth noting that the same Kathleen Sebelius, who has shown such competence (cough) in giving us (and the President) the wonderful new rules and regs on Obamacare along with that amazing new website so people can sign up fo it. . . . .

. . . .is the same Kathleen Sebelius who is in charge of writing the rules and regs for food safety and consumption.

Shall we assume she tackles both issues with equal interest and proficiency?


----------



## RandallFlagg

paulitician said:


> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?



Again - it's all about denying freedom and asserting CONTROL. 

USSR all over again.


----------



## Pogo

Mustang said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _You're actually going to try to tell me you eat nuke popcorn for *heart health*??_
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a thread this wacko I didn't see that one coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.
> 
> What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic.  If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.
Click to expand...


There ain't a damn thing wrong with butter -- other than what might be in the milk used to produce it.

I'm still on my lifelong quest to figure out why butter is anathema in the South.  No answers on that front yet.  Not sure if that's related to TK's butter hate but it's there.


----------



## Pogo

RandallFlagg said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again - it's all about denying freedom and asserting CONTROL.
> 
> USSR all over again.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because keeping carcinogens and diseases and poisons out of the food and drug supply is just SO Bolshevik.



Apparently the night shift is here, ready to be told what's already been posted all over again.... sigh...


----------



## paulitician

Pogo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiight, this country will never be free until I can ingest all the carcinogens and rodent feces and salmonella I want, dammit!
> 
> Fascist.
Click to expand...


Nah, you're the Fascist. You're all-in on the Food Gestapo thing. But you're certainly not alone. There are Millions & Millions of ignorant Nanny/Police Staters just like you. It's very sad.


----------



## bendog

Pogo said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.
> 
> What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic.  If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ain't a damn thing wrong with butter -- other than what might be in the milk used to produce it.
> 
> I'm still on my lifelong quest to figure out why butter is anathema in the South.  No answers on that front yet.  Not sure if that's related to TK's butter hate but it's there.
Click to expand...


WE love butter.  I'm a guy for the no cholesterol substitute crap, but that's not cause I don't love butter.

Seriously, trans fats evidence a market failure.  The ban's really no different from the damn guvt making us put catalytic converters on our cars.  That was the beginning of the end of REAL MEN fixing their own cars.


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiight, this country will never be free until I can ingest all the carcinogens and rodent feces and salmonella I want, dammit!
> 
> Fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you're the Fascist. You're all-in on the Food Gestapo thing. But you're certainly not alone. There are Millions & Millions of ignorant Nanny/Police Staters just like you. It's very sad.
Click to expand...


Actually that would be you there Paulie.  You're so immersed in the power of the big bad gubbamint that you completely miss the power of the big bad corporation.  But it is after all hard to see when you've got your nose so far up its ass.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again - it's all about denying freedom and asserting CONTROL.
> 
> USSR all over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because keeping carcinogens and diseases and poisons out of the food and drug supply is just SO Bolshevik.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the night shift is here, ready to be told what's already been posted all over again.... sigh...
Click to expand...


You are a moron. Let's see&#8230;.the "gubmit" made tens of billions off of cigarette manufacturers and stuffed their coffers with the money, told us how DANGEROUS cigarettes are, yet refuses to ban them - a known cancer causing agent.

The "gubmit" allows alcohol to be made and sold in the United States even knowing that deaths from alcohol have increased ten-fold in the last 20 years. Still,, it is not illegal to purchase and consume alcohol. Look at the tens of thousands of drunk-on-their-ass people leave stadiums every Saturday and Sunday and drive their cars away.

Don't give me your "we're doing it for your own good" Horsesh&t. Get your act together, you clown.


----------



## Pogo

bendog said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic.  If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ain't a damn thing wrong with butter -- other than what might be in the milk used to produce it.
> 
> I'm still on my lifelong quest to figure out why butter is anathema in the South.  No answers on that front yet.  Not sure if that's related to TK's butter hate but it's there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WE love butter.  I'm a guy for the no cholesterol substitute crap, but that's not cause I don't love butter.
> 
> Seriously, trans fats evidence a market failure.  The ban's really no different from the damn guvt making us put catalytic converters on our cars.  That was the beginning of the end of REAL MEN fixing their own cars.
Click to expand...


WE love it but the South doesn't.  I have no idea why.  Any number of restaurants here, you ask for butter, they bring you margarine.  You say "no, I want *butter*", they claim they don't even have any.  That's not the case outside the South.  I can't figure out why that is.


----------



## naomibee

they have proven that butter is good for you in moderation that's all we use here.no one fat or health problems!!!.


----------



## paulitician

If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.


----------



## Pogo

RandallFlagg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again - it's all about denying freedom and asserting CONTROL.
> 
> USSR all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because keeping carcinogens and diseases and poisons out of the food and drug supply is just SO Bolshevik.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the night shift is here, ready to be told what's already been posted all over again.... sigh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a moron. Let's see&#8230;.the "gubmit" made tens of billions off of cigarette manufacturers and stuffed their coffers with the money, told us how DANGEROUS cigarettes are, yet refuses to ban them - a known cancer causing agent.
> 
> The "gubmit" allows alcohol to be made and sold in the United States even knowing that deaths from alcohol have increased ten-fold in the last 20 years. Still,, it is not illegal to purchase and consume alcohol. Look at the tens of thousands of drunk-on-their-ass people leave stadiums every Saturday and Sunday and drive their cars away.
> 
> Don't give me your "we're doing it for your own good" Horsesh&t. Get your act together, you clown.
Click to expand...


Yawn - we did this like six hundred posts ago.  It's because of the power of Big Tobacco.  Get your _own _act together.  And by the way - fallacy of composition/biased sample.

Look, nobody claimed the FDA does enough, and nobody said they were consistent.  I've noted that several times, bringing up Aspartame.  But that doesn't mean when it gets something right it's still wrong.


----------



## ScienceRocks

paulitician said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? You're all useless cattle. You're just too dumb to be allowed to decide what you eat and drink. That's why Big Brother is gonna do it for you. He knows what's best for you. So just shut up and do what you're told. This is not a free country. Capisce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiight, this country will never be free until I can ingest all the carcinogens and rodent feces and salmonella I want, dammit!
> 
> Fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you're the Fascist. You're all-in on the Food Gestapo thing. But you're certainly not alone. There are Millions & Millions of ignorant Nanny/Police Staters just like you. It's very sad.
Click to expand...


So you don't want food standards or safety standards. That's all fascist and shit..


----------



## RandallFlagg

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because keeping carcinogens and diseases and poisons out of the food and drug supply is just SO Bolshevik.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the night shift is here, ready to be told what's already been posted all over again.... sigh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron. Let's see.the "gubmit" made tens of billions off of cigarette manufacturers and stuffed their coffers with the money, told us how DANGEROUS cigarettes are, yet refuses to ban them - a known cancer causing agent.
> 
> The "gubmit" allows alcohol to be made and sold in the United States even knowing that deaths from alcohol have increased ten-fold in the last 20 years. Still,, it is not illegal to purchase and consume alcohol. Look at the tens of thousands of drunk-on-their-ass people leave stadiums every Saturday and Sunday and drive their cars away.
> 
> Don't give me your "we're doing it for your own good" Horsesh&t. Get your act together, you clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn - we did this like six hundred posts ago.  It's because of the power of Big Tobacco.  Get your _own _act together.
> 
> Look, nobody claimed the FDA does enough, and nobody said they were consistent.  I've noted that several times, bringing up Aspartame.  But that doesn't mean when it gets something right it's still wrong.
Click to expand...


Again - horses%it.

Barry is currently destroying the most effective healthcare that has EVER existed on the face of the earth. Dismantling it in front of our eyes and you say that his "Big Brother" government can ban the American people from exercising the own good judgement but they CAN'T ban a tobacco company from producing products KNOWN to cause death!?!?!

Again, Horses%it.


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.



And if you see Big Brother in the freaking FDA, you live in a comic book.


----------



## Pogo

RandallFlagg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron. Let's see&#8230;.the "gubmit" made tens of billions off of cigarette manufacturers and stuffed their coffers with the money, told us how DANGEROUS cigarettes are, yet refuses to ban them - a known cancer causing agent.
> 
> The "gubmit" allows alcohol to be made and sold in the United States even knowing that deaths from alcohol have increased ten-fold in the last 20 years. Still,, it is not illegal to purchase and consume alcohol. Look at the tens of thousands of drunk-on-their-ass people leave stadiums every Saturday and Sunday and drive their cars away.
> 
> Don't give me your "we're doing it for your own good" Horsesh&t. Get your act together, you clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn - we did this like six hundred posts ago.  It's because of the power of Big Tobacco.  Get your _own _act together.
> 
> Look, nobody claimed the FDA does enough, and nobody said they were consistent.  I've noted that several times, bringing up Aspartame.  But that doesn't mean when it gets something right it's still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again - horses%it.
> 
> Barry is currently destroying the most effective healthcare that has EVER existed on the face of the earth. Dismantling it in front of our eyes and you say that his "Big Brother" government can ban the American people from exercising the own good judgement but they CAN'T ban a tobacco company from producing products KNOWN to cause death!?!?!
> 
> Again, Horses%it.
Click to expand...


I never brought up tobacco.  You did.  Nor does ACA have squat to do with any of this.

Do you not know how to construct a rational argument at all?? Assuming not, why are you here?


----------



## Vox

FJO said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FJO said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".
> 
> So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.
> 
> So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, eggs have been vindicated.
> It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So*, let me be the first to predict a new scientific study within a year or so, proving that eggs are bad for you*. And sugar and milk and bread, depending on where and how they are classified today.
> 
> And let me go out on the limb and include carbs. Just a matter of time and/or how desperately the scientist needs funds to condemn the food of his choice.
> 
> Scientists, whose occupation appears to be nothing more than condemning/vindicating foods, depending how the wind blows, here is a hint: It has been a long time since tomatoes  have been called poison.
> 
> Ain't it time to release your wisdom on the unwashed, regarding this vegetable, which you define as fruit?
Click to expand...


you are too late. that has been the early 90s 

there is science and science.

believe me, I know how to read the studies.

And I always considered this BS about cholesterol in food to be exactly that - BS. because we synthesize it 24/7 and the one from outside does not matter.
Same is with carbs, eggs or HRT - another BS.
One has to actually READ the studies in question and look at those the way one is supposed to.
I could tell you a lot of stories including research BS.

However, let's not throw the baby with the bath water.
Scientists and researchers are human, therefore all human sins are present in the field.
But it is not all of those and there are ways to judge it for it's merits - if one knows what to look for.

transfats are simply not needed in the human diet. artificial ones. the ones which are the subject of FDA regulation.

I honestly do not see any reason for so many emotions here.

Why won't you guys feel stymied when FDA blackboxed droperidol  - it is much more corrupted situation, but nobody ever heard of it in general public, right?


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> nah, eggs have been vindicated.
> It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So*, let me be the first to predict a new scientific study within a year or so, proving that eggs are bad for you*. And sugar and milk and bread, depending on where and how they are classified today.
> 
> And let me go out on the limb and include carbs. Just a matter of time and/or how desperately the scientist needs funds to condemn the food of his choice.
> 
> Scientists, whose occupation appears to be nothing more than condemning/vindicating foods, depending how the wind blows, here is a hint: It has been a long time since tomatoes  have been called poison.
> 
> Ain't it time to release your wisdom on the unwashed, regarding this vegetable, which you define as fruit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are too late. that has been the early 90s
> 
> there is science and science.
> 
> believe me, I know how to read the studies.
> 
> And I always considered this BS about cholesterol in food to be exactly that - BS. because we synthesize it 24/7 and the one from outside does not matter.
> Same is with carbs, eggs or HRT - another BS.
> One has to actually READ the studies in question and look at those the way one is supposed to.
> I could tell you a lot of stories including research BS.
> 
> However, let's not throw the baby with the bath water.
> Scientists and researchers are human, therefore all human sins are present in the field.
> But it is not all of those and there are ways to judge it for it's merits - if one knows what to look for.
> 
> transfats are simply not needed in the human diet. artificial ones. the ones which are the subject of FDA regulation.
> 
> I honestly do not see any reason for so many emotions here.
> 
> Why won't you guys feel stymied when FDA blackboxed droperidol  - it is much more corrupted situation, but nobody ever heard of it in general public, right?
Click to expand...


That's true, my Dad was a chemist and he told us about this cholesterol mythology.

I eat eggs every day and my cholesterol always screens well.  But I never touch margarine.  Wouldn't touch it as a kid either.


----------



## koshergrl

Margarine was touted as the low cholesterol, healthful alternative to butter.

Whoops, they got it wrong..again!

Moral of story...don't blindly follow whatever fad is going down.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Margarine was touted as the low cholesterol, healthful alternative to butter.
> 
> Whoops, they got it wrong..again!
> 
> Moral of story...don't blindly follow whatever fad is going down.



Yup, it was so touted by the packaged food industry.  Which is exactly why they need an eye kept on 'em. 

"Don't blindly follow whatever fad" -- words to live by. 
I would post that on Nosebook if I followed the fad to have an account.  Of course the Nosebookers wouldn't get the irony...


----------



## RandallFlagg

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn - we did this like six hundred posts ago.  It's because of the power of Big Tobacco.  Get your _own _act together.
> 
> Look, nobody claimed the FDA does enough, and nobody said they were consistent.  I've noted that several times, bringing up Aspartame.  But that doesn't mean when it gets something right it's still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again - horses%it.
> 
> Barry is currently destroying the most effective healthcare that has EVER existed on the face of the earth. Dismantling it in front of our eyes and you say that his "Big Brother" government can ban the American people from exercising the own good judgement but they CAN'T ban a tobacco company from producing products KNOWN to cause death!?!?!
> 
> Again, Horses%it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never brought up tobacco.  You did.  Nor does ACA have squat to do with any of this.
> 
> Do you not know how to construct a rational argument at all?? Assuming not, why are you here?
Click to expand...


DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.


----------



## ScienceRocks

So defund the FDA and repeal all of the safety standards.


----------



## Pogo

RandallFlagg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again - horses%it.
> 
> Barry is currently destroying the most effective healthcare that has EVER existed on the face of the earth. Dismantling it in front of our eyes and you say that his "Big Brother" government can ban the American people from exercising the own good judgement but they CAN'T ban a tobacco company from producing products KNOWN to cause death!?!?!
> 
> Again, Horses%it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never brought up tobacco.  You did.  Nor does ACA have squat to do with any of this.
> 
> Do you not know how to construct a rational argument at all?? Assuming not, why are you here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself.  There's your answer.


----------



## daveman

DiamondDave said:


> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
Click to expand...


Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association.  Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban". 

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix _trans _and started drooling.  We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread.  Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS  (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats _per se_ (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list.  The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of *1958*".  The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years.  You were just a wee bit late.  Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank.  How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave.  Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave


----------



## Mustang

Pogo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you see Big Brother in the freaking FDA, you live in a comic book.
Click to expand...


These people are fools.  The bad guys are the ones who look for and find ways around the FDA so they can market and sell products which the FDA has no power to control.  So, as a for instance, look at the whole supplemental nutrition, vitamins, and herbal remedies which have sprung up over the last 20 plus years.  They make all kinds of claims which do not have to be backed by scientific studies, NOT because they're motivated by altruism, but because they're trying to make fast money off other people and their health problems.

If and when I ever see or hear conservatives fight for the little guys who are getting ripped off instead of the corporations and fly by night companies who are doing the ripping off (in the name of freedom, no less) then I'll be impressed.

Until such time, I'm not impressed at all.


----------



## daveman

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Read more, post less.
> [/B]


Good idea.  Try it sometime.

Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

coffin nail noun

Definition of COFFIN NAIL

slang
:  cigarette
*First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL

1888*

Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully.  Don't bother.


----------



## ScienceRocks

So should the FDA control the safety of foods?


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association.  Haven't seen one of those all day.
> 
> Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".
> 
> First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix _trans _and started drooling.  We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread.  Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.
> 
> If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS  (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.
> 
> Since nobody here argues for trans fats _per se_ (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list.  The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...
> 
> DAMN.
> 
> "Food Additives Amendment of *1958*".  The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years.  You were just a wee bit late.  Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
> Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank.  How far we've come.
> 
> (^^sarcasm alert^^)
> 
> So here's your question, Dave.  Actually two:
> 
> 1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and
> 
> 2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?
> 
> TIA, Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious.  Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you.  Idiot progressive smokes pot every day.  Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story:  Idiot progressives are idiots.


----------



## ScienceRocks

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association.  Haven't seen one of those all day.
> 
> Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".
> 
> First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix _trans _and started drooling.  We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread.  Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.
> 
> If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS  (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.
> 
> Since nobody here argues for trans fats _per se_ (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list.  The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...
> 
> DAMN.
> 
> "Food Additives Amendment of *1958*".  The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years.  You were just a wee bit late.  Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
> Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank.  How far we've come.
> 
> (^^sarcasm alert^^)
> 
> So here's your question, Dave.  Actually two:
> 
> 1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and
> 
> 2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?
> 
> TIA, Dave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.
> 
> Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.
> 
> As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious.  Guess not.
> 
> Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you.  Idiot progressive smokes pot every day.  Pot is bad for you.
> 
> The moral of the story:  Idiot progressives are idiots.
Click to expand...


So is smoking cigs and drinking. Fact.


----------



## daveman

Matthew said:


> So is smoking cigs and drinking. Fact.



No, shit, Captain Obvious.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association.  Haven't seen one of those all day.
> 
> Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".
> 
> First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix _trans _and started drooling.  We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread.  Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.
> 
> If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS  (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.
> 
> Since nobody here argues for trans fats _per se_ (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list.  The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...
> 
> DAMN.
> 
> "Food Additives Amendment of *1958*".  The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years.  You were just a wee bit late.  Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
> Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank.  How far we've come.
> 
> (^^sarcasm alert^^)
> 
> So here's your question, Dave.  Actually two:
> 
> 1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and
> 
> 2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?
> 
> TIA, Dave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.
> 
> Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.
> 
> As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious.  Guess not.
> 
> Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you.  Idiot progressive smokes pot every day.  Pot is bad for you.
> 
> The moral of the story:  Idiot progressives are idiots.
Click to expand...


Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1.  Check.

To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it.  Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).

Thanks for playing Dave.  Nobody does it better.


----------



## koshergrl

Mustang said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you see Big Brother in the freaking FDA, you live in a comic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are fools. The bad guys are the ones who look for and find ways around the FDA so they can market and sell products which the FDA has no power to control. So, as a for instance, look at the whole supplemental nutrition, vitamins, and herbal remedies which have sprung up over the last 20 plus years. They make all kinds of claims which do not have to be backed by scientific studies, NOT because they're motivated by altruism, but because they're trying to make fast money off other people and their health problems.
> 
> If and when I ever see or hear conservatives fight for the little guys who are getting ripped off instead of the corporations and fly by night companies who are doing the ripping off (in the name of freedom, no less) then I'll be impressed.
> 
> Until such time, I'm not impressed at all.
Click to expand...

 
All that garbage is produced, marketed, sold by and to progressive dingbats.


----------



## Mustang

daveman said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> [/B]
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Try it sometime.
> 
> Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> coffin nail noun
> 
> Definition of COFFIN NAIL
> 
> slang
> :  cigarette
> *First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL
> 
> 1888*
> 
> Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully.  Don't bother.
Click to expand...


And to THIS day, one hundred and twenty-five years later, cigarette company executives have YET to admit a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease.

How do you account for that?


----------



## koshergrl

Who cares? If you know it's poison, don't smoke it.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association.  Haven't seen one of those all day.
> 
> Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".
> 
> First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix _trans _and started drooling.  We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread.  Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.
> 
> If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS  (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.
> 
> Since nobody here argues for trans fats _per se_ (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list.  The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...
> 
> DAMN.
> 
> "Food Additives Amendment of *1958*".  The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years.  You were just a wee bit late.  Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
> Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank.  How far we've come.
> 
> (^^sarcasm alert^^)
> 
> So here's your question, Dave.  Actually two:
> 
> 1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and
> 
> 2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?
> 
> TIA, Dave
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.
> 
> Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.
> 
> As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious.  Guess not.
> 
> Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you.  Idiot progressive smokes pot every day.  Pot is bad for you.
> 
> The moral of the story:  Idiot progressives are idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1.  Check.
> 
> To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it.  Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).
> 
> Thanks for playing Dave.  Nobody does it better.
Click to expand...

Fallacy.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

In your case, you think it means "something I can't argue against, so I'll just pretend to be superior and talk down to people".  

How's that workin' out for ya?


----------



## daveman

Mustang said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more, post less.
> [/B]
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Try it sometime.
> 
> Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> coffin nail noun
> 
> Definition of COFFIN NAIL
> 
> slang
> :  cigarette
> *First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL
> 
> 1888*
> 
> Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully.  Don't bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And to THIS day, one hundred and twenty-five years later, cigarette company executives have YET to admit a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease.
> 
> How do you account for that?
Click to expand...

I don't, nor do I have to. 

Whattya think about that?


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.
> 
> Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.
> 
> As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious.  Guess not.
> 
> Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you.  Idiot progressive smokes pot every day.  Pot is bad for you.
> 
> The moral of the story:  Idiot progressives are idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1.  Check.
> 
> To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it.  Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).
> 
> Thanks for playing Dave.  Nobody does it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
> 
> In your case, you think it means "something I can't argue against, so I'll just pretend to be superior and talk down to people".
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
Click to expand...


Actually pretty well, Answer-man. 

I wouldn't know about the 'talking down' bit -- you mean like "you want the government to make all your decisions for you"?  Or like "weak minded"?  Or both?
Doesn't seem efficacious to me.  How's it working out for you?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.
> 
> What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic.  If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ain't a damn thing wrong with butter -- other than what might be in the milk used to produce it.
> 
> I'm still on my lifelong quest to figure out why butter is anathema in the South.  No answers on that front yet.  Not sure if that's related to TK's butter hate but it's there.
Click to expand...


I'm not from the south, I stay away from butter and many milk products, they are unhealthy for a diet.


----------



## Foxfyre

I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.  

And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?

Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?

The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.

The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Can you prove that methods of growing more food faster = bad?


----------



## Papageorgio

Foxfyre said:


> I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.
> 
> And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?
> 
> Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?
> 
> The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.
> 
> The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?



Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.
> 
> And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?
> 
> Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?
> 
> The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.
> 
> The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?



Definitely not, Fox.  I signed that petition long ago protesting that appointment and have railed about it here.  But that doesn't mean any particular action, taken by itself, is tainted.

And again as noted earlier, what you're calling a "ban" would be simply the removal from the GRAS list, which would subject said additives to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA, from which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.  Naturally they wouldn't pass that test, nor should they, since neither the FDA nor you nor me nor anyone that's commented here sees no value in them whatsoever, while plenty of harm has been demonstrated.

And again Foxy - the GRAS list has been protecting our foods since *1958*, and the federal government was screening for dangerous ingredients in the public food supplies over a hundred years before that -- so how come all of a sudden we're jumping up and down for the right to be poisoned NOW?  Doesn't make any sense.


From the FDA press release:
>> "One of the FDA&#8217;s core regulatory functions is ensuring that food, including all substances added to food, is safe,&#8221; said Michael Taylor, the FDA&#8217;s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. &#8220;Food manufacturers have voluntarily decreased trans fat levels in many foods in recent years, but a substantial number of products still contain partially hydrogenated oils, which are the major source of trans fat in processed food.&#8221;

Following a review of the submitted comments, if the FDA finalizes its preliminary determination, PHOs would be considered &#8220;food additives&#8221; and could not be used in food unless authorized by regulation. If such a determination were made, the agency would provide adequate time for producers to reformulate products in order to minimize market disruption. The FDA&#8217;s preliminary determination is only with regard to PHOs and does not affect trans fat that naturally occurs in small amounts in certain meat and dairy products. <<  (PHOs = 'partially hydrogenated oils')


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.
> 
> And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?
> 
> Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?
> 
> The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.
> 
> The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.
Click to expand...


Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.

DUH!


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Actually pretty well, Answer-man.


I'm sure you like to pretend that.  


Pogo said:


> I wouldn't know about the 'talking down' bit -- you mean like "you want the government to make all your decisions for you"?  Or like "weak minded"?  Or both?
> Doesn't seem efficacious to me.  How's it working out for you?


Pointing out the reality of progressivism is working great.

Of course, some people get all pissy.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually pretty well, Answer-man.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you like to pretend that.
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know about the 'talking down' bit -- you mean like "you want the government to make all your decisions for you"?  Or like "weak minded"?  Or both?
> Doesn't seem efficacious to me.  How's it working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out the reality of progressivism is working great.
> 
> Of course, some people get all pissy.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah I noticed.  I told that guy to self-copulate.  He hasn't come back.


----------



## koshergrl

Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.

True story.


----------



## koshergrl

"
_*&#8220;Replacement of (saturated fat) with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol.&#8221;*_

_*Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease*_


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually pretty well, Answer-man.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you like to pretend that.
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know about the 'talking down' bit -- you mean like "you want the government to make all your decisions for you"?  Or like "weak minded"?  Or both?
> Doesn't seem efficacious to me.  How's it working out for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out the reality of progressivism is working great.
> 
> Of course, some people get all pissy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah I noticed.  I told that guy to self-copulate.  He hasn't come back.
Click to expand...

You sure do lead a rich fantasy life.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you like to pretend that.
> 
> Pointing out the reality of progressivism is working great.
> 
> Of course, some people get all pissy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah I noticed.  I told that guy to self-copulate.  He hasn't come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do lead a rich fantasy life.
Click to expand...


You're too kind, but nah.  Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848.  I don't even know how to approach that level.


----------



## Vox

Foxfyre said:


> I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.
> 
> And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?
> 
> Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?
> 
> The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.
> 
> The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  *Does that inspire a great deal of confidence *folks?


 Confidence in  what? that transfats are bad for you and they better be eliminated from the food? I don't need the government officials to tell me that - I already know it.

even the broken clock gets the time right twice a day


----------



## Vox

koshergrl said:


> Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.
> 
> True story.



good Lord, even our grand-grand-grandmothers knew that without a double-blinded randomized controlled trials proving the obvious 

margarine was called " butter for poor" for a reason.


----------



## Vox

Papageorgio said:


> I'm not from the south, I stay away from butter and many milk products, they are unhealthy for a diet.



they are very healthy.
unless you have lactose intolerance or some other dairy-related enzyme deficiencies.
But for a healthy person all of the above is very good food.

People of Asian and African origin have a bit different genetic composition than those of  European origin - and often lack the enzymes needed for the metabolism of dairy products.
For those people  dairy products might be problematic and should be avoided, obviously.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah I noticed.  I told that guy to self-copulate.  He hasn't come back.
> 
> 
> 
> You sure do lead a rich fantasy life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too kind, but nah.  Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848.  I don't even know how to approach that level.
Click to expand...

Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.


----------



## Noomi

novasteve said:


> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass



What does homosexuality and trans fats have to do with each other?


----------



## Pogo

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does homosexuality and trans fats have to do with each other?
Click to expand...


Nothing whatsoever.

My theory is that NovaSteve, who's notorious for his obsession with transsexuals, saw the word "trans" and his eyes bugged out.  He posted the thread and stayed for ten posts before it dawned on him that it wasn't a sex story.

After that he got bored and left to go keep his gloryhole appointment.


----------



## Noomi

Pogo said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
> 
> But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does homosexuality and trans fats have to do with each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing whatsoever.
> 
> My theory is that NovaSteve, who's notorious for his obsession with transsexuals, saw the word "trans" and his eyes bugged out.  He posted the thread and stayed for ten posts before it dawned on him that it wasn't a sex story.
> 
> After that he got bored and left to go keep his gloryhole appointment.
Click to expand...


You make me laugh so hard sometimes, Pogo.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what difference it makes.  I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible.  But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.
> 
> And where does that stop?  Why not regulate salt?  Sugar?  Refined flour?  And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it?  Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?
> 
> Remember.  Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever.  How is her track record so far with that agency?
> 
> The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice.  But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss.  I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.
> 
> The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor.  Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.
> 
> DUH!
Click to expand...


They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?


----------



## RandallFlagg

Pogo said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never brought up tobacco.  You did.  Nor does ACA have squat to do with any of this.
> 
> Do you not know how to construct a rational argument at all?? Assuming not, why are you here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  There's your answer.
Click to expand...



I don't think so dick head. And that is no answer.


----------



## Papageorgio

RandallFlagg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  There's your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so dick head. And that is no answer.
Click to expand...


He is a typical liberal, thinks government is responsible. When you bring up how they are paid off by the tobacco industry, he gets pissy, he knows government only cares about money. Not the welfare of its people.


----------



## Papageorgio

RandallFlagg said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  There's your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so dick head. And that is no answer.
Click to expand...


He is a typical liberal, thinks government is responsible. When you bring up how they are paid off by the tobacco industry, he gets pissy, he knows government only cares about money. Not the welfare of its people. If a lobby for tran fat offered enough money, they would be okay with government. That's why they never attempted to do anything until enough people got upset. Money rules the government.


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.
> 
> True story.



I hate butter. I think it tastes like cheese, which I hate. Maybe its because I am so used to margarine, who knows...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BDBoop said:


> Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?



No, but they're smarter than rw's.


----------



## Sunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but they're smarter than rw's.
Click to expand...


I am helpless to disagree with that statement. Libs ARE smarter than conservatives.  They have figured out how to simply refuse to do anything other than be a perpetual leisure with the conservatives working and paying taxes in megabucks to support them.  It is like my house cat.  I KNOW my cat is smarter than me.  Evidence of that is who feeds whom.


----------



## paulitician

Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure do lead a rich fantasy life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too kind, but nah.  Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848.  I don't even know how to approach that level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.
Click to expand...


And again, that is the real issue isn't it?   It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet.   But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.

But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good.  It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong.  Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.

And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives.   We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be.  But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too kind, but nah.  Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848.  I don't even know how to approach that level.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, that is the real issue isn't it?   It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet.   But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.
> 
> But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good.  It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong.  Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.
> 
> And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives.   We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be.  But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  And deep down, statists know they can't get people to voluntarily agree with their agenda.  That's why they have to indoctrinate school children with it -- they're too young to question what they're told.  For the rest of us, they have to alter the government to force us to go along.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.
> 
> DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
Click to expand...


Nobody said they do it well, dumbass.  I've been saying throughout the thread that they don't do enough.  Besides which, SCOTUS ruled they don't have the authority.

Go learn to read.  All you have here is a biased sample fallacy; throw the baby out with the bath water.  Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!



No, the FDA and Captain Obvious said so.  I don't know how you missed this but we've known this is bad stuff like forever.

But by all means, while your fascist nose is squarely up the corporate anus, go ahead and take on the question that nobody else has been able to answer: what exactly would you be deprived of?









Can't answer that, can ya?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too kind, but nah.  Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848.  I don't even know how to approach that level.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, that is the real issue isn't it?   It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since *not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet*.   But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.
Click to expand...


Until they start calling it something else.  Like they do with sugars... 

And again, what the hell is the point of defending our right to something none of us wants?  

"Dammit, I want more rat feces in my cereal!  It's my right!"

You don't see how freaking silly that makes you sound?



Foxfyre said:


> But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good.  It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong.  Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.
> 
> And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives.   We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be.  But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.





Please, spare us the "Glory Be to Ayn Rand" prayer.  This is a very simple matter of a federal agency simply doing its job, looking out for food safety as it's been doing since you and I were kids, since our parents were kids, since _their _parents were kids.  A hundred and sixty-five years, and suddenly in 2013 it's this dark comic book plot by Lex Luthor to take over the world one fat molecule at a time by taking corporate protection off a man-made substance *that all of us already agree we don't want in our food.* 

Are you people collectively insane? 

Were you jumping up and down on Eisenhower when he signed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958?  Because that's all this is -- a proposal to take trans fats off the GRAS list that that legislation created.  Want to dispense with that?  Want the medications you take to be made in some guy's bathtub with no oversight?  Want salmonella in your poultry?  Carcinogens in your cosmetics?  Want your hospital blood transfusion brought in in a recycled beer bottle?

And back to those ingredient labels... _who do you think made that ingredient label happen in the first place_??  Hypocrisy, thy name is Randbot Drama Queen.

And as we've said throughout, it's the FDA _*barely *_doing its job, the cases of tobacco and GMOs and nitrates and cottonseed and sulfites and aspartame all having been brought up.  And your response is to cry the blues that it should do even LESS.

Oh yeah, _*brilliant*_ plan there.


----------



## Pogo

Here's an index to the FDA's GRAS list.  Can somebody please direct me to the threads where the idea of public commentary on these substances was also denounced by the same posters here.   Just trying to get them a way out of looking like sorry hypocrites.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Foxfyre

And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.


----------



## NoNukes

Black_Label said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.
Click to expand...


The decision might have to do with protecting children who are fed this poison by their parents. Of course, the right is against protecting children.


----------



## NoNukes

bendog said:


> I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.



Do you have a right to poison your children?


----------



## Vox

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate butter. I think it tastes like cheese, which I hate. Maybe its because I am so used to margarine, who knows...
Click to expand...


you are used. you don't have to use butter if you don't like it. simply avoid margarine. it is bad for you.

it is better to use the sour cream instead. if you want to use it a a spread.


----------



## Vox

Luddly Neddite said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but they're smarter than rw's.
Click to expand...


doesn't look like by reading this thread


----------



## Vox

NoNukes said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a right to poison your children?
Click to expand...


yes, he does.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day.



I'm sorry, I just cannot live in the pages of a Doctor Doom comic book.  Then again I never cared for soap operas.

So you've been against the government's QC of food products since it started in 1848 then?

So you take a Sharpie to the store and blot out the ingredient labels the FDA requires?  Because that's gubbamint communist jackboot brownshirt Nazi fascist dictatorship.  You can't be caught reading them...  and surely you've been doing that for the entire 48 years food has been labeled -- right?

Let's have a look-see just how far back you Neanderthals want to take us...

A *1311* London ordinance required of all wine that each turn be marked in front, so that the buyer may readily see the value of the wine.  One of the most commonly  adulterated food items in England was butter. A *1649* statute regulating the adulteration of butter required every butter packer to place his initials of mark on the container in order to discover and punish any person who violated the regulation. A similar butter statute enacted by Parliament in *1662 *sought to trace violators by requiring every butter packer to brand his first initial and full surname on each container of butter he sold.

... In colonial America, liability marks were used as by municipalities as a means to impose weight and price controls on loaves of bread. In *1646*, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony (created) the first recorded Assize of Bread in colonial America.  Almost an exact copy of the British Assize of Bread, it too required that every Baker shall have a distinct mark for his Bread. When Virginia passed a law in *1745* regulating the size of flour barrels, it provided that inspector of barrels was supposed to stamp each barrel as first, or second fitness before it could exported.  Later such labeling regulations were extended to barrels of pork...

In *1785*, Massachusetts may have been the first legislative body in the world to enact a broad food adulteration statute applicable to all food commodities.  In the last quarter of the 18th century, many states enacted similarly broad statutes. For example, in *1786*, Virginia enacted a broad statute. However, these statutes lacked many affirmative labeling requirements, and not until the twentieth century did affirmative labeling requirements become common place.

*(Once) food production is dominated by mass production and distribution, the balance of power shifts against the consumer.* When the consumer no longer has a personal relationship with the producer or at least the peddler of the food products, then the consumer can no longer rely on trust as a guide to making good purchases. When a product is canned, bottled, or simply pre-packaged, the consumer has no way of monitoring its quality at purchase.  The only way a consumer might ever know of a product's poor quality is if they become ill from using it. Worse yet, the manufacturer can engage in sophisticated adulteration techniques that go completely undetected by the consumer, and can in fact only be detected by an inspector.  Producers figured out ways to subtly alter the chemical composition of pre-packaged foods so that quality of production without the consumer perceiving any drop in the quality of the product.

... But the real impetus for public awareness of adulteration as a public health dilemma came from a report issued in 1850... (which) documented a marked decline in the average life expectancy of citizens of major American urban centers, and indicted food adulteration as a major public health problem.  As a result of these concerns, many U.S. states adopted anti-adulteration statues in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Unfortunately state regulations were woefully inadequate because states lacked enforcement resources and could not regulate food (that) was transported across state lines. <<

You can continue reading about the need for action on a national basis, _advocated by the food and drug makers themselves including Squibb, Heinz and Pabst_ (pp 17-18, Food Labeling Regulation: A Historical and Comparative Survey)

1850 of course was the era when food production was becoming industrialized/mass produced, in contrast to the crops a common farmer would grow for himself.


So you want to take us back to 1311 then?  Cool, let's go.  I understand they had some awesome diseases.  It's my right to experience them.


----------



## Vox

Foxfyre said:


> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.



the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.

banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.

Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.


----------



## Vox

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.
> 
> DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
Click to expand...


they also allow high fructose corn syrup - which only proves that government entities are very prone to corruption and some lobbies are more potent than the others.


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
Click to expand...


It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.
> 
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they also allow high fructose corn syrup - which only proves that government entities are very prone to corruption and some lobbies are more potent than the others.
Click to expand...


Damn right, and we mentioned nitrates, GMOs, sulfites, cottonseed and tobacco too.  That's why I keep linking this. 

Again, this preposterously naïve "big gummint" argument is like looking at the levee that has sprung seven leaks and complaining that part of the levee is still holding.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
Click to expand...


Foxy I love ya but you're a hopeless drama queen.



> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.



There sure is.  And once you recognize that you'll see how silly you're looking right now.  Again, this classification applies to food _producers_ -- not consumers.  Try to distort that all you want with these empty cries of "dictating our diet" but truth will out. 

And once again you don't want trans fats anyway so your "dictating our diet" BS is pure hypocrisy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy I love ya but you're a hopeless drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There sure is.  And once you recognize that you'll see how silly you're looking right now.  Again, this classification applies to food _producers_ -- not consumers.  Try to distort that all you want with these empty cries of "dictating our diet" but truth will out.
> 
> And once again you don't want trans fats anyway so your "dictating our diet" BS is pure hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


And once more the point went flying right over your head.  I may be silly, but at least I know what the point is.


----------



## Vox

Pogo said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they also allow high fructose corn syrup - which only proves that government entities are very prone to corruption and some lobbies are more potent than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn right, and we mentioned nitrates, GMOs, sulfites, cottonseed and tobacco too.  That's why I keep linking this.
> 
> Again, this preposterously naïve "big gummint" argument is like looking at the levee that has sprung seven leaks and complaining that part of the levee is still holding.
Click to expand...


well, you have to agree that big gubmint acting obviously corrupt and outward stupid is not helping in convincing the populace everything is done in their best interests.
remember our fight over the European idiocy to prosecute criminally the citizens if they exchange the seeds between themselves without going through lengthy and costly licensing first?( banning Monsanto is good, prosecuting the individuals for their private deeds is evil)
That is also an example of government idiocy - on even a higher level than a single country government.


----------



## Pogo

*1937* - Elixir of Sulfanilamide, containing the poisonous solvent _diethylene glycol_, kills 107 persons, many of whom are children, dramatizing the need to establish drug safety before marketing and to enact the pending food and drug law.

*1959* - U.S. cranberry crop recalled three weeks before Thanksgiving for FDA tests to check for _aminotriazole_, a weedkiller found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Cleared berries were allowed a label stating that they had been tested and had passed FDA inspection, the only such endorsement ever allowed by FDA on a food product.

*1962* - *Thalidomide*, a new sleeping pill, is found to have caused birth defects in thousands of babies born in western Europe. News reports on the role of Dr. Frances Kelsey, FDA medical officer, in keeping the drug off the U.S. market, arouse public support for stronger drug regulation.

(an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 children worldwide were born with birth defects as a direct result of Thalidomide; thanks to Dr. Kelsey at FDA, it was _*never *_legally sold here)

*1979* - In the hours following the Three Mile Island nuclear emergency of March 28, 1979, FDA contracted with firms in Missouri, Michigan, and New Jersey to prepare and package enough doses of potassium iodide to protect those threatened with thyroid cancer if exposed to radiation. Nearly one quarter of a million bottles-enough for every household in the area-were delivered to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania within 72 hours.

*1989* - FDA issues a nationwide recall of all over-the-counter dietary supplements containing 100 milligrams or more of L-Tryptophan, due to a clear link between the consumption of L-tryptophan tablets and its association with a U.S. outbreak of Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), characterized by fatigue, shortness of breath, and other symptoms. By 1990 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirm over 1,500 cases of EMS, including 38 deaths, and FDA prohibits the importation of l-tryptophan.

*1990* - Safe Medical Devices Act is passed, requiring nursing homes, hospitals, and other facilities that use medical devices to report to FDA incidents that suggest that a medical device probably caused or contributed to the death, serious illness, or serious injury of a patient. Manufacturers are required to conduct post-market surveillance on permanently implanted devices whose failure might cause serious harm or death, and to establish methods for tracing and locating patients depending on such devices. The act authorizes FDA to order device product recalls and other actions.


*2000* - The U. S. Supreme Court, upholding an earlier decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al., ruled 5-4 that FDA *does not have authority to regulate tobacco as a drug*. Within weeks of this ruling, FDA revokes its final rule, issued in 1996, that restricted the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents, and that determined that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are combination products consisting of a drug (nicotine) and device components intended to deliver nicotine to the body.

*2004 *- Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act requires the labeling of any food that contains a protein derived from any one of the following foods that, as a group, account for the vast majority of food allergies: peanuts, soybeans, cow's milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat. (mostly from FDA site)

Some cases there where the system worked ... Now let's look at the negative -- the mean old gubbamint leaving a consumer choice _in lieu of_ a ban:

*1997 *- "The Food and Drug Administration, acting on new evidence about significant side-effects associated with fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, has *asked the manufacturers to voluntarily withdraw* both treatments for obesity from the market.

This is the diet control substance commonly known as "fen-phen".  It was targeted because of its adverse coronary and pulmonary effects.  Tens of thousands of people were injured; one of them is my friend (Foxy knows) afflicted with pulmonary hypertension (PH), the same disease Sunshine suffers from.  There is _no cure_ for it.  It's with you "for the duration".  Nice, huh?

Had the FDA been more proactive and had a Frances Kelsey to put a skeptical eye on fen-phen, instead of asking for voluntary action after the fact, those tens of thousands might have been spared.  But that's what you get when regulation doesn't go far enough.


----------



## Vox

Foxfyre said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.  And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  *The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
Click to expand...


and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.


----------



## Pogo

Thalidomide Revisited - featuring an interview/story with/about Frances Kelsey (at age 95, she's now 99)  Good story.

Ironically this public servant who kept Thalidomide off pharmacy shelves here was a Canadian, while Canada didn't stop the drug and suffered the effects.  IOW the FDA succeeded where Canada and Europe failed.






]

Kelsey receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the highest civilian honor in the United States (1962)​
"Had Thalidomide been approved in the U.S., its use would have spread even further across the world because the U.S. is the biggest market -- the FDA today is considered the gold standard for approval.  It wasn't back in 1961, but even so I think the imprimatur of U.S. approval would have meant wider use for Thalidomide." -- Fran Hawthorne, author of _Inside the FDA- The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat_ (quoted from program linked above)


But let's not forget, _*the FDA is evil*_.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  *The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
Click to expand...


I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.
> 
> banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
> You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.
> 
> Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
> Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  *The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
Click to expand...


I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because costs the manufactuer little or nothing, and  it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  *The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.
Click to expand...


And what "choice" is that?  The right to ingest anti-freeze?  The right to have Thalidomide babies?  The right to eat carcinogens?  Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely _nobody _desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??

Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word _choice_ here is completely disingenuous.


----------



## Vox

Foxfyre said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one.  *The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products:  ZERO TRANS FAT.  There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food.  You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.
> 
> There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.
> 
> And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.
Click to expand...


a choice taking from WHOM?
you can eat as much trans fats as you wish - in your house.

the decision has labeled the transfats as the harmful category of ingredients - not banned it.
sure, it has the implications for the food INDUSTRY. It makes them LIABLE if they opt to put it in the ingredients to the food they sell.

That is not taking away your choice at all. It is labeling the harmful product as such and letting the industry which invented it for their profit ( which is OK as long as it is safe) that now they can use the harmful ingredient and be open to the numerous lawsuits.
What the industry will chose to do - is their option.
They can still use the ingredient.
It is simply marked as harmful.

I can still use droperidol ( a great drug, BTW) which was blackboxed in a typical corrupt manner for the benefit of then new zofran but I will be taking my own risk in using it - it makes me more liable for the lawsuits.
It is cheaper and better than the alternatives. And it is as safe as they are. The decision by FDA was corrupt and stupid one.
It still did not take my choice away - it made my choice more risky.
Same is here. The choice is there. It is just much more risky.


----------



## Pogo

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate butter. I think it tastes like cheese, which I hate. Maybe its because I am so used to margarine, who knows...
Click to expand...


Maybe that's why your cakes aren't working...


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Indeed.  And deep down, statists know they can't get people to voluntarily agree with their agenda.  That's why they have to indoctrinate school children with it -- they're too young to question what they're told.  For the rest of us, they have to alter the government to force us to go along.



"Force us to go along"?
Are you a food company, Dave?

No?

Then it doesn't affect you.

Duh.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what "choice" is that?  The right to ingest anti-freeze?  The right to have Thalidomide babies?  The right to eat carcinogens?  Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely _nobody _desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??
> 
> Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word _choice_ here is completely disingenuous.
Click to expand...


Now you're not being just silly.  You are being deliberately obtuse and trying to change the subject along with dishonest inferences about what I am saying.  And I won't try again to explain a concept that you are apparently incapable of understanding.  But I love you anyway, Pogo.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "choice" is that?  The right to ingest anti-freeze?  The right to have Thalidomide babies?  The right to eat carcinogens?  Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely _nobody _desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??
> 
> Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word _choice_ here is completely disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're not being just silly.  You are being deliberately obtuse and trying to change the subject along with dishonest inferences about what I am saying.  And I won't try again to explain a concept that you are apparently incapable of understanding.  But I love you anyway, Pogo.
Click to expand...


Aw Foxy, you concession speeches are always so subtle... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All I did was demonstrate why your choice of "choice" doesn't work, and this is the thanks I get. Hmph.  But it was _your _word choice...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ[/ame]

Love ya Mom O'Fox.


----------



## Pogo

Vox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.
> 
> I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
> they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.
> 
> Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
> And this time it finally did do it's job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others.  But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.
> 
> And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy.  That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices.  There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a choice taking from WHOM?
> you can eat as much trans fats as you wish - in your house.
> 
> the decision has labeled the transfats as the harmful category of ingredients - not banned it.
Click to expand...


Actually it doesn't even go that far --- it would simply remove trans fats from the list of stuff that *are not* harmful - which would then require it to pass safety standards they don't now need to pass.  Which, again, is the FDA's _job_ -- a job it barely does as it is.  And far from being "breaking news", this was an announcement of a 60-day comment period on the proposal --- again following long-established procedures.  Nothing at all new.

I guess it demonstrates the contortions some wags will put themselves through taking a dishonestly-framed OP at face value rather than actually looking into it.


----------



## skye

This trans -fat  ...harmful or not... I am will never  stop eating. Never.

Hot chips.


----------



## Connery

skye said:


> This trans -fat  ...harmful or not... I am will never  stop eating. Never.
> 
> 
> 
> Hot chips.




With deep fried fish on the beach!!!


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh--- it *IS* their business.  That's what FDA _*does*_.  It's the entire _point _of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.
> 
> DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said they do it well, dumbass.  I've been saying throughout the thread that they don't do enough.  Besides which, SCOTUS ruled they don't have the authority.
> 
> Go learn to read.  All you have here is a biased sample fallacy; you want them to ban tobacco, I'm sure you can write to them at the same address they have up for this.  But all you're doing is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?
Click to expand...


I don't want them to ban tobacco, I don't think they need to ban trans fats or GMO's, or milk, nitrates, fluoride, aluminum and so on.


I educate myself on food and what is healthy or not. Then I follow it, once in awhile I'll eat something I shouldn't. But that is my choice, I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you, who needs government make decisions for you.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they do it well, dumbass.  I've been saying throughout the thread that they don't do enough.  Besides which, SCOTUS ruled they don't have the authority.
> 
> Go learn to read.  All you have here is a biased sample fallacy; you want them to ban tobacco, I'm sure you can write to them at the same address they have up for this.  But all you're doing is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want them to ban tobacco, I don't think they need to ban trans fats or GMO's, or milk, nitrates, fluoride, aluminum and so on.
> 
> 
> I educate myself on food and what is healthy or not. Then I follow it, once in awhile I'll eat something I shouldn't. But that is my choice, I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you, who needs government make decisions for you.
Click to expand...


So it's all about Numero Uno, right?

Typical.

Once again for the terminally slow -- there's nothing here relating to what you can eat.  Oh wait, you're "intelligent", so you know that.
How do you like them banning labels that tell us there are GMOs in there then?


----------



## Foxfyre

Also to those trying to defend government overreach by saying that it isn't a ban, it sure sounds like a ban to me:



> Condemning artificial trans fats as a threat to public health, the FDA announced Thursday it will require the food industry to phase them out.
> Trans fat ban: FDA requiring food industry to phase out trans fats | abc7chicago.com



The same article comforts us though that it is the former Monsanto VP and chief lobbyist who is looking out for our health and welfare by issuing the restriction on trans fat.

That says nobody will be allowed to sell the stuff as food to anybody.

And I'll make a prediction.  When the number of heart disease and cancer cases doesn't go down, and they realize that trans fat, while there is little to commend it, was not the problem after all, they'll go after something else.  And then something else.  And then something else.   It is not beyond the realm of reasonable imgination that it won't be long before they'll start dictating what school children are required to be served for lunches--wait, they already do that.

The addiction to power is rarely ever curbed by government once it has been unleashed.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Also to those trying to defend government overreach by saying that it isn't a ban, it sure sounds like a ban to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condemning artificial trans fats as a threat to public health, the FDA announced Thursday it will require the food industry to phase them out.
> Trans fat ban: FDA requiring food industry to phase out trans fats | abc7chicago.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same article comforts us though that it is the former Monsanto VP and chief lobbyist who is looking out for our health and welfare by issuing the restriction on trans fat.
> 
> That says nobody will be allowed to sell the stuff as food to anybody.
Click to expand...


Actually no that's not what it says.

>> How can the government get rid of them? The FDA said it has made a preliminary determination that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which covers thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. *Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it*, and that would likely not be approved. <<

The food companies inserting these chemicals would need to prove they are not harmful to human health.  If they can do that, they get approved.  So what you want is for this chemical conspiracy to be given a nod and a wink and nobody needs to prove squat.  What you want is another aspartame.  

Your own link.

The presence of these chemicals on the GRAS list was originally done _by the FDA itself_.  What it now proposes to do is re-evaluate *its own list*.
The FDA can't update its own list?? 




Foxfyre said:


> And I'll make a prediction. When the number of heart disease and cancer cases doesn't go down, and they realize that trans fat, while there is little to commend it, was not the problem after all, they'll go after something else. And then something else. And then something else. It is not beyond the realm of reasonable imgination that it won't be long before they'll start dictating what school children are required to be served for lunches--wait, they already do that.
> 
> The addiction to power is rarely ever curbed by government once it has been unleashed.



Yawn... I'm sure it's entertaining living in the pages of _Doctor Doom Meets Ayn Rand_.  If only centuries of food safety oversight had had those comic books.  Imagine where we'd be by now.


----------



## Pogo

_*How do trans fats affect my health?*_
Trans fats raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol levels and lower your good (HDL) cholesterol levels.  Eating trans fats increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.  It&#8217;s also associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

*Why did trans fats become so popular if they have such bad health effects?*
Before 1990, very little was known about how trans fat can harm your health.  In the 1990s, research began identifying the adverse health effects of trans fats.

*How much trans fat can I eat in a day?*
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories.  That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats.  That&#8217;s less than 2 grams of trans fats a day.  Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats.
--- American Heart Association​

For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fat&#8212;the worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the body&#8212;was found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases &#8220;partially hydrogenated vegetable oil&#8221; and &#8220;vegetable shortening&#8221; meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence.  Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats). 

... Of course, *many foods don&#8217;t come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fats&#8212;and, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods*&#8212;many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. California&#8217;s governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a &#8220;Trans Fat Help Center&#8221; to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.

The shift follows the growing realization that trans fats are even worse for the heart and blood vessels than saturated fats.
-- Harvard School of Public Health​

Commercial baked goods &#8212; such as crackers, cookies and cakes &#8212; and many fried foods, such as doughnuts and french fries &#8212; may contain trans fats. Shortenings and some margarines can be high in trans fat.

Trans fat used to be more common, but in recent years food manufacturers have used it less because of concerns over the health effects of trans fat. Food manufacturers in the United States and many other countries list the trans fat content on nutrition labels.

However, you should be aware of what nutritional labels really mean when it comes to trans fat. For example, in the United States if a food has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving,_* the food label can read 0 grams trans fat*_. Though that's a small amount of trans fat, if you eat multiple servings of foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could exceed recommended limits.

How do you know whether food contains trans fat? Look for the words "partially hydrogenated" vegetable oil. That's another term for trans fat.

... It sounds counterintuitive, but "fully" or "completely" hydrogenated oil doesn't contain trans fat. Unlike partially hydrogenated oil, the process used to make fully or completely hydrogenated oil doesn't result in trans-fatty acids. However, if the label says just "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, it could mean the oil contains some trans fat.
--- Mayo Clinic​
Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case. 

So is the FDA.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they do it well, dumbass.  I've been saying throughout the thread that they don't do enough.  Besides which, SCOTUS ruled they don't have the authority.
> 
> Go learn to read.  All you have here is a biased sample fallacy; you want them to ban tobacco, I'm sure you can write to them at the same address they have up for this.  But all you're doing is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want them to ban tobacco, I don't think they need to ban trans fats or GMO's, or milk, nitrates, fluoride, aluminum and so on.
> 
> 
> I educate myself on food and what is healthy or not. Then I follow it, once in awhile I'll eat something I shouldn't. But that is my choice, I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you, who needs government make decisions for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's all about Numero Uno, right?
> 
> Typical.
> 
> Once again for the terminally slow -- there's nothing here relating to what you can eat.  Oh wait, you're "intelligent", so you know that.
> How do you like them banning labels that tell us there are GMOs in there then?
Click to expand...


No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want them to ban tobacco, I don't think they need to ban trans fats or GMO's, or milk, nitrates, fluoride, aluminum and so on.
> 
> 
> I educate myself on food and what is healthy or not. Then I follow it, once in awhile I'll eat something I shouldn't. But that is my choice, I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you, who needs government make decisions for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's all about Numero Uno, right?
> 
> Typical.
> 
> Once again for the terminally slow -- there's nothing here relating to what you can eat.  Oh wait, you're "intelligent", so you know that.
> How do you like them banning labels that tell us there are GMOs in there then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.
Click to expand...



Uh huh.  So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated  themselves".  Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves".  My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".

Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Thalidomide Revisited - featuring an interview/story with/about Frances Kelsey (at age 95, she's now 99)  Good story.
> 
> Ironically this public servant who kept Thalidomide off pharmacy shelves here was a Canadian, while Canada didn't stop the drug and suffered the effects.  IOW the FDA succeeded where Canada and Europe failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Kelsey receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the highest civilian honor in the United States (1962)​
> "Had Thalidomide been approved in the U.S., its use would have spread even further across the world because the U.S. is the biggest market -- the FDA today is considered the gold standard for approval.  It wasn't back in 1961, but even so I think the imprimatur of U.S. approval would have meant wider use for Thalidomide." -- Fran Hawthorne, author of _Inside the FDA- The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat_ (quoted from program linked above)
> 
> 
> But let's not forget, _*the FDA is evil*_.


Which companies were putting thalidomide in food products without telling consumers?


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And deep down, statists know they can't get people to voluntarily agree with their agenda.  That's why they have to indoctrinate school children with it -- they're too young to question what they're told.  For the rest of us, they have to alter the government to force us to go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Force us to go along"?
> Are you a food company, Dave?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then it doesn't affect you.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...

If this were the only issue on which progressives were trying to legislate their agenda, you'd have a point.

However...


----------



## daveman

skye said:


> This trans -fat  ...harmful or not... I am will never  stop eating. Never.
> 
> Hot chips.


If progressives have their way, you'll only be able to buy them on the black market.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.


Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thalidomide Revisited - featuring an interview/story with/about Frances Kelsey (at age 95, she's now 99)  Good story.
> 
> Ironically this public servant who kept Thalidomide off pharmacy shelves here was a Canadian, while Canada didn't stop the drug and suffered the effects.  IOW the FDA succeeded where Canada and Europe failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Kelsey receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the highest civilian honor in the United States (1962)​
> "Had Thalidomide been approved in the U.S., its use would have spread even further across the world because the U.S. is the biggest market -- the FDA today is considered the gold standard for approval.  It wasn't back in 1961, but even so I think the imprimatur of U.S. approval would have meant wider use for Thalidomide." -- Fran Hawthorne, author of _Inside the FDA- The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat_ (quoted from program linked above)
> 
> 
> But let's not forget, _*the FDA is evil*_.
> 
> 
> 
> Which companies were putting thalidomide in food products without telling consumers?
Click to expand...


Thalidomide was a drug, not a food.  And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job.  The same job it's dong here.

Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for?  I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".

But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"?  Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Pogo said:


> _*How do trans fats affect my health?*_
> Trans fats raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol levels and lower your good (HDL) cholesterol levels.  Eating trans fats increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.  Its also associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
> 
> *Why did trans fats become so popular if they have such bad health effects?*
> Before 1990, very little was known about how trans fat can harm your health.  In the 1990s, research began identifying the adverse health effects of trans fats.
> 
> *How much trans fat can I eat in a day?*
> The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories.  That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats.  Thats less than 2 grams of trans fats a day.  Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats.
> --- American Heart Association​
> 
> For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fatthe worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the bodywas found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and vegetable shortening meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence.  Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats).
> 
> ... Of course, *many foods dont come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fatsand, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods*many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. Californias governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a Trans Fat Help Center to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.
> 
> The shift follows the growing realization that trans fats are even worse for the heart and blood vessels than saturated fats.
> -- Harvard School of Public Health​
> 
> Commercial baked goods  such as crackers, cookies and cakes  and many fried foods, such as doughnuts and french fries  may contain trans fats. Shortenings and some margarines can be high in trans fat.
> 
> Trans fat used to be more common, but in recent years food manufacturers have used it less because of concerns over the health effects of trans fat. Food manufacturers in the United States and many other countries list the trans fat content on nutrition labels.
> 
> However, you should be aware of what nutritional labels really mean when it comes to trans fat. For example, in the United States if a food has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving,_* the food label can read 0 grams trans fat*_. Though that's a small amount of trans fat, if you eat multiple servings of foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could exceed recommended limits.
> 
> How do you know whether food contains trans fat? Look for the words "partially hydrogenated" vegetable oil. That's another term for trans fat.
> 
> ... It sounds counterintuitive, but "fully" or "completely" hydrogenated oil doesn't contain trans fat. Unlike partially hydrogenated oil, the process used to make fully or completely hydrogenated oil doesn't result in trans-fatty acids. However, if the label says just "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, it could mean the oil contains some trans fat.
> --- Mayo Clinic​
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> So is the FDA.



It's irrelevant no case needs to be made. It's my body my choice  of what I want to consume.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And deep down, statists know they can't get people to voluntarily agree with their agenda.  That's why they have to indoctrinate school children with it -- they're too young to question what they're told.  For the rest of us, they have to alter the government to force us to go along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Force us to go along"?
> Are you a food company, Dave?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then it doesn't affect you.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this were the only issue on which progressives were trying to legislate their agenda, you'd have a point.
> 
> However...
Click to expand...


However what?

Are you a food company or aren't you?  And if you are, go ahead... make the case.

--------------------



daveman said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> This trans -fat  ...harmful or not... I am will never  stop eating. Never.
> 
> Hot chips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If progressives have their way, you'll only be able to buy them on the black market.
Click to expand...



No trans fats are required to make fries.  Irrelevant.




-------------------------------------





daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
Click to expand...


Isn't it?

See first post above.  If you're a food company, go ahead, make your case that your trans fats should NOT be required to test for safety.  If you're not, make the case for what you're being deprived of.  You have 58 days.


----------



## Pogo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*How do trans fats affect my health?*_
> Trans fats raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol levels and lower your good (HDL) cholesterol levels.  Eating trans fats increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.  It&#8217;s also associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
> 
> *Why did trans fats become so popular if they have such bad health effects?*
> Before 1990, very little was known about how trans fat can harm your health.  In the 1990s, research began identifying the adverse health effects of trans fats.
> 
> *How much trans fat can I eat in a day?*
> The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories.  That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats.  That&#8217;s less than 2 grams of trans fats a day.  Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats.
> --- American Heart Association​
> 
> For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fat&#8212;the worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the body&#8212;was found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases &#8220;partially hydrogenated vegetable oil&#8221; and &#8220;vegetable shortening&#8221; meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence.  Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats).
> 
> ... Of course, *many foods don&#8217;t come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fats&#8212;and, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods*&#8212;many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. California&#8217;s governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a &#8220;Trans Fat Help Center&#8221; to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.
> 
> The shift follows the growing realization that trans fats are even worse for the heart and blood vessels than saturated fats.
> -- Harvard School of Public Health​
> 
> Commercial baked goods &#8212; such as crackers, cookies and cakes &#8212; and many fried foods, such as doughnuts and french fries &#8212; may contain trans fats. Shortenings and some margarines can be high in trans fat.
> 
> Trans fat used to be more common, but in recent years food manufacturers have used it less because of concerns over the health effects of trans fat. Food manufacturers in the United States and many other countries list the trans fat content on nutrition labels.
> 
> However, you should be aware of what nutritional labels really mean when it comes to trans fat. For example, in the United States if a food has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving,_* the food label can read 0 grams trans fat*_. Though that's a small amount of trans fat, if you eat multiple servings of foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could exceed recommended limits.
> 
> How do you know whether food contains trans fat? Look for the words "partially hydrogenated" vegetable oil. That's another term for trans fat.
> 
> ... It sounds counterintuitive, but "fully" or "completely" hydrogenated oil doesn't contain trans fat. Unlike partially hydrogenated oil, the process used to make fully or completely hydrogenated oil doesn't result in trans-fatty acids. However, if the label says just "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, it could mean the oil contains some trans fat.
> --- Mayo Clinic​
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> So is the FDA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant no case needs to be made. It's my body my choice  of what I want to consume.
Click to expand...


Nobody cares what you consume.  Has nothing to do with this topic.  You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.
Or do you not understand what the issue is?


----------



## Foxfyre

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
Click to expand...


You have to understand that in the leftist mind a cut of any part of a proposed increase in spending is a spending cut and, if it is in a program with a noble sounding title, is a gutting of the budget and tramples on the poor.

Any suggestion that Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare needs to be done differently is interpreted that the conservatives intend to get rid of those programs entirely.

Any suggestion that there is overreach by the EPA or a stupid energy policy, we eeeeeeevul conservatives are PROMOTING dirty air, dirty water, contaminated soil, and polluted oceans.

Any suggestion that we should secure our borders and regulate immigration is proof that we hate Mexicans.

Any criticism of the President is racist and we hate him because he is black.

So does it really surprise you that us wanting to retain our unalienable right to live our lives a we choose and resisting unnecessary government interference and overreach will be interpreted, by the dedicated leftists, as supporting thalidomide babies and wanting to poison people?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*How do trans fats affect my health?*_
> Trans fats raise your bad (LDL) cholesterol levels and lower your good (HDL) cholesterol levels.  Eating trans fats increases your risk of developing heart disease and stroke.  Its also associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
> 
> *Why did trans fats become so popular if they have such bad health effects?*
> Before 1990, very little was known about how trans fat can harm your health.  In the 1990s, research began identifying the adverse health effects of trans fats.
> 
> *How much trans fat can I eat in a day?*
> The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories.  That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats.  Thats less than 2 grams of trans fats a day.  Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats.
> --- American Heart Association​
> 
> For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fatthe worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the bodywas found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and vegetable shortening meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence.  Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats).
> 
> ... Of course, *many foods dont come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fatsand, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods*many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. Californias governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a Trans Fat Help Center to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.
> 
> The shift follows the growing realization that trans fats are even worse for the heart and blood vessels than saturated fats.
> -- Harvard School of Public Health​
> 
> Commercial baked goods  such as crackers, cookies and cakes  and many fried foods, such as doughnuts and french fries  may contain trans fats. Shortenings and some margarines can be high in trans fat.
> 
> Trans fat used to be more common, but in recent years food manufacturers have used it less because of concerns over the health effects of trans fat. Food manufacturers in the United States and many other countries list the trans fat content on nutrition labels.
> 
> However, you should be aware of what nutritional labels really mean when it comes to trans fat. For example, in the United States if a food has less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving,_* the food label can read 0 grams trans fat*_. Though that's a small amount of trans fat, if you eat multiple servings of foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could exceed recommended limits.
> 
> How do you know whether food contains trans fat? Look for the words "partially hydrogenated" vegetable oil. That's another term for trans fat.
> 
> ... It sounds counterintuitive, but "fully" or "completely" hydrogenated oil doesn't contain trans fat. Unlike partially hydrogenated oil, the process used to make fully or completely hydrogenated oil doesn't result in trans-fatty acids. However, if the label says just "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, it could mean the oil contains some trans fat.
> --- Mayo Clinic​
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> So is the FDA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant no case needs to be made. It's my body my choice  of what I want to consume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody cares what you consume.  Has nothing to do with this topic.  You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.
Click to expand...

 FDA to ban trans-fats

Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume


----------



## Pogo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant no case needs to be made. It's my body my choice  of what I want to consume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares what you consume.  Has nothing to do with this topic.  You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDA to ban trans-fats
> 
> Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume
Click to expand...


Consider the source.  You're reading a title fabricated by NovaSteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals.  He saw the word _trans _and started drooling.  But the reality is nothing's being "banned".  So you can't go by that.

What's actually happening is FDA is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own GRAS list.  Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe.  Being off it will mean you do.  So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.

Might wanna rethink that.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand that in the leftist mind a cut of any part of a proposed increase in spending is a spending cut and, if it is in a program with a noble sounding title, is a gutting of the budget and tramples on the poor.
> 
> Any suggestion that Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare needs to be done differently is interpreted that the conservatives intend to get rid of those programs entirely.
> 
> Any suggestion that there is overreach by the EPA or a stupid energy policy, we eeeeeeevul conservatives are PROMOTING dirty air, dirty water, contaminated soil, and polluted oceans.
> 
> Any suggestion that we should secure our borders and regulate immigration is proof that we hate Mexicans.
> 
> Any criticism of the President is racist and we hate him because he is black.
> 
> So does it really surprise you that us wanting to retain our unalienable right to live our lives a we choose and resisting unnecessary government interference and overreach will be interpreted, by the dedicated leftists, as supporting thalidomide babies and wanting to poison people?
Click to expand...


Foxy, in my eleven months here that has got to be the absolute worst argument you have ever made.  Blanket-statements-R-us have a sale?

*Nothing *here has anything remotely to do with budgets, EPAs, borders, Social Security, Medicare, racism, or freaking Mexicans.  And I personally have opined on *NONE* of those anyway.  You are _way _out of line here.  And by the way, the post Dave excised and declared "not the issue" -- analysis by the Amerian Heart Association, Mayo Clinic and Harvard School of Public Health -- _*is one you already agree with*_.  How hypocritical can you get.

Your "unnecessary government interference" has been going on since at least the 14th century (in Europe), since the 17th century here, since 1848 as regards the federal government, and since 1958 as regards the GRAS list.  Yet somehow suddenly public health is a problem when we remove a toxic chemical that not one of us wants adulterating our foods.

Worst. Argument. Ever.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Thalidomide was a drug, not a food.  And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job.  The same job it's dong here.
> 
> Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for?  I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".


No kidding, Mr. Obvious.

But in case you didn't know, this thread is about the F part.  

Dumbass.


Pogo said:


> But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"?  Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.


Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Comments:  Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.  Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older.  It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons.  It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle."  It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians.  Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;[3] Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;[4] and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[5]  It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,[6] and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.[7]

This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently.  It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."[8]​
Looks like we're both wrong.  I can admit it.  Can you?


----------



## daveman

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's irrelevant no case needs to be made. It's my body my choice  of what I want to consume.


I'd ask Pogo to rationally explain the dichotomy between government staying out of a woman's uterus and government keeping a close eye on what you put in your stomach...but it'd be a waste of keystrokes.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Force us to go along"?
> Are you a food company, Dave?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then it doesn't affect you.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> If this were the only issue on which progressives were trying to legislate their agenda, you'd have a point.
> 
> However...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However what?
> 
> Are you a food company or aren't you?  And if you are, go ahead... make the case.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No trans fats are required to make fries.  Irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it?
> 
> See first post above.  If you're a food company, go ahead, make your case that your trans fats should NOT be required to test for safety.  If you're not, make the case for what you're being deprived of.  You have 58 days.
Click to expand...

Throughout this whole thread, you've completely failed to understand the point.

The only question remaining is:  Is it on purpose or not?


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thalidomide was a drug, not a food.  And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job.  The same job it's dong here.
> 
> Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for?  I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, Mr. Obvious.
> 
> But in case you didn't know, this thread is about the F part.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"?  Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello
> 
> Comments:  Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.  Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older.  It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons.  It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle."  It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians.  Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;[3] Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;[4] and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[5]  It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,[6] and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.[7]
> 
> This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently.  It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."[8]​
> Looks like we're both wrong.  I can admit it.  Can you?
Click to expand...


I already read that site.  I didn't say Ford was the first, did I?  Careful how you word things. 
What else I read said that the false Jefferson attribution came from a Jim DeMint speech.  Always vet your quotes.

The thread is _supposed to be _about the F part.  That would be peachy with me.  But some wags here insist on defining FDA as "gubbamint overreach".  So I pointed out what that "overreach" of that same agency has accomplished, one of which was keeping Thalidomide at bay while it poisoned the rest of the world.  Had the gubbamint nihilists had their way we'd have been at its mercy.

Too bad that's such an inconvenient reality huh?

And btw that's *Captain *Obvious, thank you very much.


----------



## Vox

skye said:


> This trans -fat  ...harmful or not... I am will never  stop eating. Never.
> 
> Hot chips.



and who on earth told you you need trans fats for those ?


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand that in the leftist mind a cut of any part of a proposed increase in spending is a spending cut and, if it is in a program with a noble sounding title, is a gutting of the budget and tramples on the poor.
> 
> Any suggestion that Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare needs to be done differently is interpreted that the conservatives intend to get rid of those programs entirely.
> 
> Any suggestion that there is overreach by the EPA or a stupid energy policy, we eeeeeeevul conservatives are PROMOTING dirty air, dirty water, contaminated soil, and polluted oceans.
> 
> Any suggestion that we should secure our borders and regulate immigration is proof that we hate Mexicans.
> 
> Any criticism of the President is racist and we hate him because he is black.
> 
> So does it really surprise you that us wanting to retain our unalienable right to live our lives a we choose and resisting unnecessary government interference and overreach will be interpreted, by the dedicated leftists, as supporting thalidomide babies and wanting to poison people?
Click to expand...

Not at all.  Despite their claims to be nuanced, independent thinkers that can see all sides of an issue, they really are only binary thinkers.  

This is undeniable, lefties, so don't bother trying to deny it.  You especially, Pogo.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thalidomide was a drug, not a food.  And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job.  The same job it's dong here.
> 
> Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for?  I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, Mr. Obvious.
> 
> But in case you didn't know, this thread is about the F part.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"?  Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello
> 
> Comments:  Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.  Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older.  It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons.  It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle."  It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians.  Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;[3] Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;[4] and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[5]  It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,[6] and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.[7]
> 
> This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently.  It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."[8]​
> Looks like we're both wrong.  I can admit it.  Can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already read that site.  I didn't say Ford was the first, did I?  Careful how you word things.
Click to expand...

Well, ain't you just a little weasel.


Pogo said:


> What else I read said that the false Jefferson attribution came from a Jim DeMint speech.  Always vet your quotes.
> 
> The thread is _supposed to be _about the F part.  That would be peachy with me.  But some wags here insist on defining FDA as "gubbamint overreach".  So I pointed out what that "overreach" of that same agency has accomplished, one of which was keeping Thalidomide at bay while it poisoned the rest of the world.  Had the gubbamint nihilists had their way we'd have been at its mercy.
> 
> Too bad that's such an inconvenient reality huh?
> 
> And btw that's *Captain *Obvious, thank you very much.


You don't have to keep telling us that you need the government to make all your decisions for you.  We get it.  We've gotten it for a long time.


----------



## Vox

Guys, it is really getting ridiculous 


the manufactured by food industry substance, manufactured to be cheap and profitable, has been proven to be harmful to the human health and when the government agency which sole purpose is to be a watchdog for us, the consumers, actually does it's job and mandates that harmful substance to be phased our of the market, you put that poisonous substance, which was manufactured to DUPE YOU, the consumer  ( because the natural fats which are healthier are much pricier) is put up as a symbol of freedom.

If I won't be reading this myself for the third day I would say it is a lie.

How about manufactured genetically altered products?
Are you also considering them to be a banner of freedom?
Or are they the result of evil conspiracies of the Bilderberg club?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's all about Numero Uno, right?
> 
> Typical.
> 
> Once again for the terminally slow -- there's nothing here relating to what you can eat.  Oh wait, you're "intelligent", so you know that.
> How do you like them banning labels that tell us there are GMOs in there then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated  themselves".  Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves".  My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".
> 
> Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.
Click to expand...


You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular. 

It's not about número uno, it is about getting your fucking self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the fucking government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say fuck you, so spare me your massive stupidity.

I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.

Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a fuck about anything but themselves.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated  themselves".  Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves".  My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".
> 
> Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular.
Click to expand...


Your note of FDA's dragging its heels is well taken.  So if they should have done this long ago (FDA admits it's been studying thiis for 15 years) -- then how can you simultaneously say they shouldn't?  Are the voices in your head arguing again?



Papageorgio said:


> It's not about número uno, it is about getting your fucking self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the fucking government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say fuck you, so spare me your massive stupidity.



OK if that's what you want:  "Fuck you".  Happy?

Isn't it?  Read your own stuff: "*I* don't eat that shit"; "*I* educate *myself*"; "It's *my* choice"; "*I *don't need big government to make *my* decisions for *me*. *I'm* intelligent, unlike you".... me, me, me.  Burgundy, please.  Public health means everybody -- not just you.



Papageorgio said:


> I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.
> 
> Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a fuck about anything but themselves.



This has nothing to do with "telling us what to eat"; it has to do with what a food purveyor or restaurant can put into food and whether that chemical needs to prove itself safe.  That's it.  What your (apparent) position says is that the almighty corporation can inject whatever it wants and it doesn't need to be tested.  Explain that.

As far as "educating oneself", the question's still open: how would you have educated yourself about Thalidomide?  You just admitted it was the right thing to do...

When you settle these arguments you're having with yourself, let us know who won.


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares what you consume.  Has nothing to do with this topic.  You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.
> 
> 
> 
> FDA to ban trans-fats
> 
> Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consider the source.  You're reading a title fabricated by NovaSteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals.  He saw the word _trans _and started drooling.  But the reality is nothing's being "banned".  So you can't go by that.
> 
> What's actually happening is FDA is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own GRAS list.  Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe.  Being off it will mean you do.  So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.
> 
> Might wanna rethink that.
Click to expand...


And what would be the point of that if not to initiate a ban or some other set of restrictions on trans fats.  I think that it is painfully obvious that trans fats ARE NOT dangerous.  The current use of the term is so completely splintered as to make it worthless.  We have easy access to chemicals that are FAR more harmful than trans fats could ever hope to be.  All the research has already been done on trans fats and the current health risks associated with it is well known.  The simple fact is that people CHOOSE to ingest it and should have that right to do so.  Those fats are not toxic to the levels that require FDA regulations.  

Even MORE important is that the market is taking care of the problem on its own.  We have decreased trans fat consumption by rather large amounts over the years.  When the PEOPLE are solving a problem the government should NOT step in and take over.  That is asinine.  I can only see this as a move to gain more power by the FDA by finding yet another common substance that they can control.  Let the nations people take this on themselves as they are already doing so.


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDA to ban trans-fats
> 
> Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the source.  You're reading a title fabricated by NovaSteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals.  He saw the word _trans _and started drooling.  But the reality is nothing's being "banned".  So you can't go by that.
> 
> What's actually happening is FDA is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own GRAS list.  Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe.  Being off it will mean you do.  So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.
> 
> Might wanna rethink that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would be the point of that if not to initiate a ban or some other set of restrictions on trans fats.  I think that it is painfully obvious that trans fats ARE NOT &#8216;dangerous.&#8217;  The current use of the term is so completely splintered as to make it worthless.  We have easy access to chemicals that are FAR more harmful than trans fats could ever hope to be.  All the research has already been done on trans fats and the current health risks associated with it is well known.  The simple fact is that people CHOOSE to ingest it and should have that right to do so.  Those fats are not toxic to the levels that require FDA regulations.
> 
> Even MORE important is that the market is taking care of the problem on its own.  We have decreased trans fat consumption by rather large amounts over the years.  When the PEOPLE are solving a problem the government should NOT step in and take over.  That is asinine.  I can only see this as a move to gain more power by the FDA by finding yet another common substance that they can control.  Let the nation&#8217;s people take this on themselves as they are already doing so.
Click to expand...


Howdy FQ.  LTNS. 

See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough.  So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here.  I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all.  So far, crickets.

Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing.  If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
Then there's restaurants.  No "choice" there either.

Third, the only reason the market is "taking care of it on its own" (it isn't really -- certain products are still laden with it, again see post 506) that's only because the FDA acted in the past to require labeling -- which again is incomplete and insufficient.

And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list.  An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe.  If you can make that case you can get approved.

Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated  themselves".  Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves".  My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".
> 
> Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your note of FDA's dragging its heels is well taken.  So if they should have done this long ago (FDA admits it's been studying thiis for 15 years) -- then how can you simultaneously say they shouldn't?  Are the voices in your head arguing again?
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about número uno, it is about getting your fucking self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the fucking government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say fuck you, so spare me your massive stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK if that's what you want:  "Fuck you".  Happy?
> 
> Isn't it?  Read your own stuff: "*I* don't eat that shit"; "*I* educate *myself*"; "It's *my* choice"; "*I *don't need big government to make *my* decisions for *me*. *I'm* intelligent, unlike you".... me, me, me.  Burgundy, please.  Public health means everybody -- not just you.
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.
> 
> Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a fuck about anything but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with "telling us what to eat"; it has to do with what a food purveyor or restaurant can put into food and whether that chemical needs to prove itself safe.  That's it.  What your (apparent) position says is that the almighty corporation can inject whatever it wants and it doesn't need to be tested.  Explain that.
> 
> As far as "educating oneself", the question's still open: how would you have educated yourself about Thalidomide?  You just admitted it was the right thing to do...
> 
> When you settle these arguments you're having with yourself, let us know who won.
Click to expand...


No argument with myself and I think you need to learn how to better comprehend what is written, either that or you are trolling.


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> Howdy FQ.  LTNS.
> 
> See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough.  So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here.  I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all.  So far, crickets.


That is really coming at it backwards though.  It does not need a redeeming quality.  The quality is that I want to eat it.  Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.
That is how freedom works pogo  you dont limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe.  That is asinine.  You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe.  Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest.  Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.  

Alcohol IS regulated though so I guess you can try and come at it from that angle but I would be willing to bet that not a single use of trans fat can be compared to completely legal alcoholic drinks as far as destructive and harmful effects go.  Abusing trans fat is going to be less harmful than abusing alcohol.  

Further, post 506 that you point to is a list of DRUGS and their affects which are FAR different than basic foods.  Not a single one of those instances is comparable to trans fat.  There is a world of difference between drugs and food.


Pogo said:


> Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing.  If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
> Then there's restaurants.  No "choice" there either.


Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go.  You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up.  That is your right.  However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly.  I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest.  I dont care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU  as long as the end decision is MINE.  Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.


Pogo said:


> Third, the only reason the market is "taking care of it on its own" (it isn't really -- certain products are still laden with it, again see post 506) that's only because the FDA acted in the past to require labeling -- which again is incomplete and insufficient.


I think you are thinking of the wrong post  that one has nothing about laden products.

Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant.  The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade.  That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever.  They are taking care of it  the government is NOT needed here.


Pogo said:


> And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list.  An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe.  If you can make that case you can get approved.
> 
> Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?


Yes they are.  They have already started in places like NY  the favorite nanny state city.  That is EXACTLY where they are going with this.


> government agency said Thursday it would require food makers to gradually phase out artificial trans fats


http://www.nbcnews.com/health/fda-wants-ban-trans-fats-food-8C11551559
The FDA DIRECTLY said that they are moving to ban the substance.  Are you telling me that the director is lying?  I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family.  That is not what the government is there for.  Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of my own good.  That should be appalling to anyone in this nation.  WE are taking care of the problem.  WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howdy FQ.  LTNS.
> 
> See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough.  So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here.  I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all.  So far, crickets.
> 
> 
> 
> That is really coming at it backwards though.  It does not need a &#8216;redeeming&#8217; quality.  The quality is that I want to eat it.  Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...


They already have. That's the whole point.  As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.

You "want to eat it"?  Why?  This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly?  Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all.  What for?



FA_Q2 said:


> That is how freedom works pogo &#8211; you don&#8217;t limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe.  That is asinine.  You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe.  Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest.  Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.



Cool your jets.  That's not what I said.
What the FDA proposes to do is to remove them from its own GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list.  When you're on that list (as trans fats are now) you don't have to prove you're safe to go into food.  When you're off it, you do.  So what would happen is that present or future trans fats would be required to show that they're not.  And yes, ANY artificial chemical proposed to go into the public food supply has to be proven safe.  That goes without saying.  You don't just pick up random objects off the street and eat them, do you?

Whether they're more or less safe than other unrelated things is entirely irrelevant.  Those other things get evaluated on their own.  This is not a comparison.




FA_Q2 said:


> Alcohol IS regulated though so I guess you can try and come at it from that angle but I would be willing to bet that not a single use of trans fat can be compared to completely legal alcoholic drinks as far as destructive and harmful effects go.  Abusing trans fat is going to be less harmful than abusing alcohol.



Not in terms of heart disease it isn't.  Have you even read the research and conclusions?  I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all. 



FA_Q2 said:


> Further, post 506 that you point to is a list of DRUGS and their affects which are FAR different than basic foods.  Not a single one of those instances is comparable to trans fat.  There is a world of difference between drugs and food.



I beg your pardon.  I got my post numbers mixed up.  I meant to refer you to post 524.  Sorry 'bout that.



FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing.  If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
> Then there's restaurants.  No "choice" there either.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go.  You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up.  That is your right.  However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly.  I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest.  I don&#8217;t care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU &#8211; as long as the end decision is MINE.  Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.
Click to expand...


Restaurants?



FA_Q2 said:


> I think you are thinking of the wrong post&#8230;  that one has nothing about laden products.
> 
> Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant.  The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade.  That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever.  They are taking care of it &#8211; the government is NOT needed here.



I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled.  The market _*does not*_ do this by itself.  I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers.  Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example.  Some entity *MUST* oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.

I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing.  And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.



FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list.  An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe.  If you can make that case you can get approved.
> 
> Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are.  They have already started in places like NY &#8211; the favorite nanny state city.  That is EXACTLY where they are going with this.
> 
> 
> 
> government agency said Thursday it would require food makers to gradually phase out artificial trans fats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDA moves to phase out trans fats from food, citing health concerns - NBC News.com
> 
> The FDA DIRECTLY said that they are moving to ban the substance.  Are you telling me that the director is lying?
Click to expand...


No, they didn't.  Not sure where this is coming from-- your link doesn't even mention a "director".  I am telling you OP of this thread is lying though. Here's the actual FDA press release.  And I quote:

>> Following a review of the submitted comments, if the FDA finalizes its preliminary determination, PHOs *would be considered &#8220;food additives&#8221; *and could not be used in food *unless authorized by regulation*. << 

That's not a 'ban'.  I don't care what the media calls it in its headlines.

More from this FDA page on GRAS:

>> Part of the FDA's responsibility to the public is to ensure that food in the American food supply is safe. Therefore, due to the risks associated with consuming PHOs, FDA has issued a Federal Register notice with its preliminary determination that PHOs are no longer "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, for short. If this preliminary determination is finalized, then *PHOs would become food additives subject to premarket approval by FDA*. Foods containing unapproved food additives are considered adulterated under U.S. law, meaning they cannot legally be sold. <<

And more about GRAS from the same page:

>> Under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, any substance intentionally added to food is a food additive subject to premarket approval and review by FDA, with some exceptions. The exceptions include substances "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, because they are generally recognized by qualified experts as safe under the conditions of intended use. << 

-- said qualified experts no longer recognize trans fats as safe, therefore FDA is _obligated _to take them off the GRAS list.  THAT is what FDA is proposing to do.



FA_Q2 said:


> I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family.  That is not what the government is there for.  Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of &#8216;my own good.&#8217;  That should be appalling to anyone in this nation.  WE are taking care of the problem.  WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).



The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced.  The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before.  And other institutional food screening goes back at least _seven hundred years_ (see post 497).  If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were.  I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.

Again, this is the FDA's *job* -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death.  Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics.  It's _exactly _what they're there for.

Sorry about that errant post number but I think you'll find 524 far more to the point.  Let me know if you can find anything good to say about trans fats after that.  Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of?  Heart disease?

Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody cares what you consume.  Has nothing to do with this topic.  You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.
> 
> 
> 
> fda to ban trans-fats
> 
> seems the fda wants to know what i consume
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> consider the source.  You're reading a title fabricated by novasteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals.  He saw the word _trans _and started drooling.  But the reality is nothing's being "banned".  So you can't go by that.
> 
> What's actually happening is fda is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own gras list.  Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe.  Being off it will mean you do.  So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.
> 
> Might wanna rethink that.
Click to expand...


bloomberg if he had the authority would make a national ban


----------



## paulitician

Aw man, shut up people! Big Brother's so dang cool. He knows what's best for us. If he says we can't have it, then we aint havin it. That's it. This aint no fee country. Y'all just need to shut up and do what your told. Yanowhatimean?


----------



## Pogo

"Fee country" 

Yeah it pretty much is.  That's pretty much how trans fats have lasted this long .... lobbyist fees.


----------



## paulitician

Pogo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the FDA and Captain Obvious said so.  I don't know how you missed this but we've known this is bad stuff like forever.
> 
> But by all means, while your fascist nose is squarely up the corporate anus, go ahead and take on the question that nobody else has been able to answer: what exactly would you be deprived of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't answer that, can ya?
Click to expand...


Aw, i remember when i had my first beer. You sound like an adolescent desperately trying to fit in speaking with the adults. You got the bluster thing down, but behind all the bluster is an empty suit. You really don't know what you're talking about. But hey, i'll chalk it up to bold youth. Go ahead and take a break from the Board and come back when you understand what the term 'Fascist' means. I think you'll find that it actually describes you to a tee. Now off ya go youngster.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without  safty breakers in them!


----------



## paulitician

Vandalshandle said:


> I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without  safty breakers in them!



Oh GAWD, the ole lead paint meme. Man, you Nanny/Police Staters really are pathetic. YAY FOOD GESTAPO!!! And all that.


----------



## paulitician

Oh well, another day, another ban. Such is life in a Nanny/Police State. I'm out. Got some Football to enjoy. We better enjoy it while we still can i guess. Ya never know when the Dictator and his fat wife will decide to ban tackling. Have a good day all. See ya.


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the FDA and Captain Obvious said so.  I don't know how you missed this but we've known this is bad stuff like forever.
> 
> But by all means, while your fascist nose is squarely up the corporate anus, go ahead and take on the question that nobody else has been able to answer: what exactly would you be deprived of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't answer that, can ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, i remember when i had my first beer. You sound like an adolescent desperately trying to fit in speaking with the adults. You got the bluster thing down, but behind all the bluster is an empty suit. You really don't know what you're talking about. But hey, i'll chalk it up to bold youth. Go ahead and take a break from the Board and come back when you understand what the term 'Fascist' means. I think you'll find that it actually describes you to a tee. Now off ya go youngster.
Click to expand...


STILL no answer.
Noted.

"youngster" 

Lemme give you a hint there, hintless.  The first time I boarded a commercial airline flight, the President of the United States was Harry Truman.
We knew a bit about fascism then.


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without  safty breakers in them!



Damn straight brother.  We have an inalieanable right to dysentery, and cancer, and deformed babies, and planes flying into each other.  Down with control towers!  Get the citizen jackhammers out to destroy the highways!  _*Damn *_these gubbamint revenooers!


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> Oh well, another day, another ban. Such is life in a Nanny/Police State. I'm out. *Got some Football to enjoy*. We better enjoy it while we still can i guess. Ya never know when the Dictator and his fat wife will decide to ban tackling. Have a good day all. See ya.



By all means, enjoy your football -- broadcast on TV stations regulated by the FCC


----------



## DGS49

For anyone who cares to do some actual research on the subject, the connection between *dietary* cholesterol and coronary artery disease is almost completely debunked.  It is the medical equivalent of an Old Wives Tale, that simply will not go away.

For anyone familiar with the Adkins diet, he had been promoting a diet LOADED with "bad" cholesterol for decades, and in case after case after case, his patients serum cholesterol was reduced with the diet.  It gave the cardiology profession fits, until they finally had to recognize the research and quit blowing smoke about dietary cholesterol.

But a large plurality in that profession continue with their nonsense precautions, because they don't want to tell their patients that there really isn't much you can do if you have the genetic predisposition to load up your arteries.

For your reading enjoyment:

Dietary cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients: a review of the Harvard Egg Study and other data.
[Article in English, French]
Jones PJ.
SourceNutrition and Functional Foods, Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. peter_jones@umanitoba.ca

Abstract
For many years, both the medical community and the general public have incorrectly associated eggs with high serum cholesterol and being deleterious to health, even though cholesterol is an essential component of cells and organisms. It is now acknowledged that the original studies purporting to show a linear relation between cholesterol intake and coronary heart disease (CHD) may have contained fundamental study design flaws, including conflated cholesterol and saturated fat consumption rates and inaccurately assessed actual dietary intake of fats by study subjects. Newer and more accurate trials, such as that conducted by Frank B. Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health (1999), have shown that consumption of up to seven eggs per week is harmonious with a healthful diet, except in male patients with diabetes for whom an association in higher egg intake and CHD was shown. The degree to which serum cholesterol is increased by dietary cholesterol depends upon whether the individual's cholesterol synthesis is stimulated or down-regulated by such increased intake, and the extent to which each of these phenomena occurs varies from person to person. Several recent studies have shed additional light on the specific interplay between dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular health risk.* It is evident that the dynamics of cholesterol homeostasis, and of development of CHD, are extremely complex and multifactorial. In summary, the earlier purported adverse relationship between dietary cholesterol and heart disease risk was likely largely over-exaggerated.*


----------



## FA_Q2

Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a redeeming quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> They already have. That's the whole point. As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.
> 
> You "want to eat it"? Why? This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly? Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all. What for?
Click to expand...

Why is entirely irrelevant.  YOU do not get to make the determination of whether or not ones reasons for ingesting an item is good enough.  That is for the individual to decide.  There is no reason that the FDA should be coming in and demanding that you stop ingesting a particular product because they dont feel that it is healthy enough for you to ingest.  

If we were talking about something that is truly fatal then you might have a point.  Perhaps cyanide should not be part of your basic diet (Though apparently that is actually all right as it is produced by cigarettes) but you are basically demanding that a substance that potentially will have ZERO health effects unless abused and even then takes YEARS for any real impacts needs to be controlled by big daddy government.  At what point is that going to stop?  There are a LOT of things that are dangerous in some respect or another, particularly if abused.  Your arguments would fit right in with Demolition Man and Taco Bell.

X is bad for you ergo X is illegal 



Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is how freedom works pogo  you dont limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe. That is asinine. You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe. Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest. Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool your jets. That's not what I said.
> What the FDA proposes to do is to remove them from its own GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. When you're on that list (as trans fats are now) you don't have to prove you're safe to go into food. When you're off it, you do. So what would happen is that present or future trans fats would be required to show that they're not. And yes, ANY artificial chemical proposed to go into the public food supply has to be proven safe. That goes without saying. You don't just pick up random objects off the street and eat them, do you?
> 
> Whether they're more or less safe than other unrelated things is entirely irrelevant. Those other things get evaluated on their own. This is not a comparison.
Click to expand...

The health effects of other items is VERY relevant.  You are making the claim that trans fats need to be regulated when I think it is demonstrably clear they are far safer than many other products that are perfectly legal to ingest.  That is a very relevant point.  Further, I want to know what proof they are searching for.  Trans fats have already been tested.  I fail to understand what you want the food industry to prove when the health information on them are largely known - they provide no benefits and increase your risk of heart attack.  Same thing as a thousand other things that we regularly partake in.

That, to me, is simply not sufficient to justify further regulation on trans fats.  As I already pointed out, people are DOING THIS ON THEIR OWN ANYWAY!  The idea that the FDA needs to get involved after the market takes care of this on its own is completely nuts to me.  If they wanted to get involved  the time would have been a long time ago.  Now the work has been done for them and butting in is nothing more than a regulatory agency that has WAY too much time and needs to find something else to make the boogey man.



Pogo said:


> Not in terms of heart disease it isn't. Have you even read the research and conclusions? I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all.


I implied no such thing.  I stated that the positive is irrelevant.  All that is relevant is that I may want to ingest it and the government has no right to tell me no.  


Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go. You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up. That is your right. However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly. I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest. I dont care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU  as long as the end decision is MINE. Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.
> 
> 
> 
> Restaurants?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with required labeling on menus.  That would be proper regulation as that is actually geared to allowing people the freedom of choice - which is actually removed just as effectively by companies not telling you what they are selling as the government refusing you access to it.  BOTH are completely and utterly wrong.  One thing keeps freedom AND protects the customer  required and clear communication to the customer of what they are purchasing (labeling).  The other solutions are nothing more than government overreach.



Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are thinking of the wrong post that one has nothing about laden products.
> 
> Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant. The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade. That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever. They are taking care of it  the government is NOT needed here.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled. The market does not do this by itself. I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers. Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example. Some entity MUST oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.
Click to expand...

You tried to make that point but you did so incorrectly as you have done again.  You are looking at the market as companies.  That is NOT the market but rather one side of the market.  The market is populated by both companies AND consumers.  The labeling is proper governmental action as it protects the consumer (one of the governments jobs IMHO) form companies exploiting them unknowingly.  Then, after the government required consent, the MARKET (through consumers changing demands) took care of the problem.  This is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work.  Your freedom is intact and you are also protected by having the proper information available to you in order to make the choices that you want.  Choices that also include the bad ones should you desire.



Pogo said:


> I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing. And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.



There is zero doubt that the government has WAY more power in this instance.  You see, I decide what corporations I utilize (or none should I so desire).  I have but one single vote for my government and that amounts to very little influence on my own.  That is why the government and its influence should always be kept at its smallest.  The one power that it should be exerting over companies is that I should be fully informed to what they are providing me when I choose to do business with them.  That allows me the fullest form of freedom.  



Pogo said:


> No, they didn't. Not sure where this is coming from-- your link doesn't even mention a "director". I am telling you OP of this thread is lying though. Here's the actual FDA press release. And I quote:
> [snip]


That is because you are focusing on the single, carefully written press release.  The commissioner (sorry I used the term director) and the deputy commissioner have made statements that reflect the actual goal  elimination of artificial trans fats entirely.  That is what they are going for and the first step is to start regulation.  They even mentioned wanting to do so over a period of time to give the companies less of a jolt.  Simply put, the immediate action is a START.  One that is required to get the power to essentially ban the substance.

Interestingly enough, every single major article on this that I could find all said the same thing.  That this move alone would virtually ban trans fats.  Political spectrum and slant on the article was irrelevant. Everything from Huff Po and NYT to the Blaze is saying the same exact thing  the FDA is moving to ban trans fats.  If you think that is not true then I suggest that you reexamine the situation here  when EVERYONE is of the opposite opinion it is likely because your premise is flawed.

Trans fats: FDA moves toward banning - POLITICO.com 


> We know if we finalize our determination it may take some time to eliminate [partially hydrogenated oils], Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said during the conference call. And we know that removing PHO from products like frosting is more challenging.





Pogo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family. That is not what the government is there for. Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of my own good. That should be appalling to anyone in this nation. WE are taking care of the problem. WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).
> 
> 
> 
> The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced. The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before. And other institutional food screening goes back at least seven hundred years (see post 497). If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were. I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.
> 
> Again, this is the FDA's job -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death. Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics. It's exactly what they're there for.
Click to expand...

False.  The last time that this move was done (resulting in a ban then as well) was 1969.  In the last 40 years, the FDA has not done this once.  



Pogo said:


> Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of? Heart disease?
> 
> Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.


Free will.  Choice.  That is the heart of freedom.  You seem to think that the end result is all that matters.  Because I might increase the risk of heart disease then I am not deprived of anything from removing trans fats.  That is completely backwards.  I am deprived of the right to eat a food that I might enjoy.  I am deprived of the ability to do as I please.  Such a right should not be hindered unless there is clear and present dangers presented to others when I do partake in whatever I choose to.  Again, I still have the right to pollute my body with various other chemicals and unhealthy foods that are all similar with trans fats.  The core difference is that those others have not been targeted by some random government agency yet.  

That is not proper government.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Corn syrup is next


----------



## Pogo

I hope it didn't take two weeks to do that... 

What you seem to be missing here may take most of your arguments down and that is this, and we're not noting this for the first time:
What the FDA proposes to do is not to *ban *trans fats but to take them off the GRAS list.  And what that means is they would no longer get a free pass, but would be required to prove themselves safe, like any other new substance.  If they can do that, they're in.  When we say it would "effectively" ban trans fats, that means they *could not pass* the long-overdue scrutiny they would have to pass.  Which in turn means they are not safe.  So what you're arguing for is for this chemical to get a nod and a wink, and the public be damned.

And it has nothing to do with what you or I are allowed to eat.  The FDA doesn't have that kind of power.

As we go through I'll just refer to this top section as "GRAS".

=================​


FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a &#8216;redeeming&#8217; quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> They already have. That's the whole point. As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.
> 
> You "want to eat it"? Why? This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly? Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all. What for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is entirely irrelevant.  YOU do not get to make the determination of whether or not ones reasons for ingesting an item is good enough.  That is for the individual to decide.  There is no reason that the FDA should be coming in and demanding that you stop ingesting a particular product because they don&#8217;t feel that it is healthy enough for you to ingest.
Click to expand...


It's relevant because _it's the basis of your point_.  I want to know how you got there.  I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.

  As for the FDA in the second part -- that *IS* exactly their job.  As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).



FA_Q2 said:


> If we were talking about something that is truly fatal then you might have a point.



We are.



FA_Q2 said:


> Perhaps cyanide should not be part of your basic diet (Though apparently that is actually all right as it is produced by cigarettes) but you are basically demanding that a substance that potentially will have ZERO health effects unless abused and even then takes YEARS for any real impacts needs to be controlled by big daddy government.  At what point is that going to stop?  There are a LOT of things that are dangerous in some respect or another, particularly if abused.  Your arguments would fit right in with Demolition Man and Taco Bell.



Now you're injecting degrees where none existed.  Nobody said "zero". Or any other number.  We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities.  It's not even a trade-off.  There is nothing good in it.

Considering which, again, why do you _want _to eat it?   I haven't seen an answer on that yet.

Sorry, I don't know what "Demolition Man" is.  A new burger?

RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.



FA_Q2 said:


> X is bad for you ergo X is illegal&#8230;
> 
> The health effects of other items is VERY relevant.  You are making the claim that trans fats need to be regulated when I think it is demonstrably clear they are far safer than many other products that are perfectly legal to ingest.  That is a very relevant point.  Further, I want to know what &#8216;proof&#8217; they are searching for.  Trans fats have already been tested.  I fail to understand what you want the food industry to &#8216;prove&#8217; when the health information on them are largely known - they provide no benefits and increase your risk of heart attack.  Same thing as a thousand other things that we regularly partake in.



Again, you're comparing irrelevancies.  This action has nothing to do with whatever those other substances are.  They get judged on their own merits.  And whether substance X, Y or Z is approved or not has nothing to do with trans fats.

As far as what the industry is to prove -- see GRAS above.



FA_Q2 said:


> That, to me, is simply not sufficient to justify further regulation on trans fats.  As I already pointed out, people are DOING THIS ON THEIR OWN ANYWAY!  The idea that the FDA needs to get involved after the market takes care of this on its own is completely nuts to me.  If they wanted to get involved &#8211; the time would have been a long time ago.  Now the work has been done for them and butting in is nothing more than a regulatory agency that has WAY too much time and needs to find something else to make the boogey man.



We're starting to rehash the same arguments again, and they'll get the same answers again: Number One, People are doing this "on their own" _*only *_because the FDA required the labels to list them (and still does so inadequately).  So like it or not, that "on their own" action was spurred by this government agency doing its job.  Number Two, you are correct, they are behind the times in doing this -- which makes your resistance all the more bizarre.  As we both note, it's *overdue*.  



FA_Q2 said:


> Not in terms of heart disease it isn't. Have you even read the research and conclusions? I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I implied no such thing.  I stated that the &#8216;positive&#8217; is irrelevant.  All that is relevant is that I may want to ingest it and the government has no right to tell me no.
Click to expand...


The government _doesn't_ tell you no.  The government doesn't tell you *anything*.  Unless you're a food producer (producer, not consumer), in which case the government will regulate what kind of safety standards you must follow.  As governments have done for centuries.  See also GRAS above.



FA_Q2 said:


> Restaurants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with required labeling on menus.  That would be proper regulation as that is actually geared to allowing people the freedom of choice - which is actually removed just as effectively by companies not telling you what they are selling as the government refusing you access to it.  BOTH are completely and utterly wrong.  One thing keeps freedom AND protects the customer &#8211; required and clear communication to the customer of what they are purchasing (labeling).  The other &#8216;solutions&#8217; are nothing more than government overreach.
Click to expand...


Should we have sold Thalidomide then?  Was it "overreach" to deny thousands of Americans the right to be born deformed?

And as far as those labels, I'll just reiterate that the labeling requirements are already inadequate (I linked that earlier), allowing some trans fats to _*still *_go through unlabeled.  And they're nonexistent in restaurants.




FA_Q2 said:


> I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled. The market does not do this by itself. I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers. Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example. Some entity MUST oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to make that point but you did so incorrectly as you have done again.  You are looking at the market as companies.  That is NOT the market but rather one side of the market.  The market is populated by both companies AND consumers.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's absurd.  The merchant part is the active part.  The consumer is _*completely *_passive here.  We have no power -- they have it all.  Which is why we need an advocate to control what corporations do -- corporations which, lest we forget, _exist at the pleasure of the people_, not the other way around (this perverse idea of making gods out of our own slaves really needs a revisit, but I digress).  Here comes your concession (bold) to what the FDA is there for...



FA_Q2 said:


> The labeling is proper governmental action as it *protects the consumer (one of the governments jobs IMHO) form companies exploiting them unknowingly*.  Then, after the government required consent, the MARKET (through consumers changing demands) took care of the problem.  This is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work.  Your freedom is intact and you are also protected by having the proper information available to you in order to make the choices that you want.  Choices that also include the &#8216;bad&#8217; ones should you desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing. And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is zero doubt that the government has WAY more power in this instance.
Click to expand...


Oh I think there's more than zero.  WAY more than zero.  Read this.  I linked it before but you weren't here yet.  Explain to me how that got on the market if the government has more power than Monsanto.  I feel like I just passed into Dada Surrealland typing those six words; it's like typing the words "his vagina"; doesn't compute.

Foxfyre has also noted, with good reason, the appointment of a former Monsanto lawyer to the FDA whose name appears in the memo in question.  And we've noted the FDA inaction on things like nitrates and cottonseed and especially GMOs.  Government, more power than industry???   Pleeeeeze.



FA_Q2 said:


> You see, I decide what corporations I utilize (or none should I so desire).  I have but one single vote for my government and that amounts to very little influence on my own.  That is why the government and its influence should always be kept at its smallest.  The one power that it should be exerting over companies is that I should be fully informed to what they are providing me when I choose to do business with them.  That allows me the fullest form of freedom.



That's a nice fantasy.  If only the history and the lobbyism and the revolving door of DC didn't make it a farce.  You and I have no choice here.  That's an illusion.




FA_Q2 said:


> That is because you are focusing on the single, carefully written press release.  The commissioner (sorry I used the term director) and the deputy commissioner have made statements that reflect the actual goal &#8211; elimination of artificial trans fats entirely.  That is what they are going for and the first step is to start regulation.  They even mentioned wanting to do so over a period of time to give the companies less of a jolt.  Simply put, the immediate action is a START.  One that is required to get the power to essentially ban the substance.



Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top.  And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line".  Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass.  Again.



FA_Q2 said:


> Interestingly enough, every single major article on this that I could find all said the same thing.  That this move alone would virtually ban trans fats.  Political spectrum and slant on the article was irrelevant. Everything from Huff Po and NYT to the Blaze is saying the same exact thing &#8211; the FDA is moving to ban trans fats.  If you think that is not true then I suggest that you reexamine the situation here &#8211; when EVERYONE is of the opposite opinion it is likely because your premise is flawed.
> 
> 
> Trans fats: FDA moves toward banning - POLITICO.com



We don't disagree on the _*effective *_outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing.  But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for _their _right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe.  Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition.  And you want to give them a pass.

Why would you do that?

See also again GRAS section at top.



FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced. The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before. And other institutional food screening goes back at least seven hundred years (see post 497). If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were. I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.
> 
> Again, this is the FDA's job -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death. Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics. It's exactly what they're there for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  The last time that this move was done (resulting in a ban then as well) was 1969.  In the last 40 years, the FDA has not done this once.
Click to expand...


Uh, that doesn't make it false.  I just noted this has been going on for centuries, you cited something (you don't say what) in 1969.  Those are in no way mutually exclusive.



FA_Q2 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of? Heart disease?
> 
> Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will.  Choice.  That is the heart of freedom.  You seem to think that the end result is all that matters.  Because I might increase the risk of heart disease then I am not deprived of anything from removing trans fats.  That is completely backwards.  I am deprived of the right to eat a food that I might enjoy.
Click to expand...


It is impossible to "enjoy".  It has no taste.  It has no benefit.  It has no nothing.  You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application.  We don't live in such a world.  And further, there's no regulation on "you".  It's a regulation on the food company.  You can eat whatever you want.  As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.



FA_Q2 said:


> I am deprived of the ability to do as I please.  Such a right should not be hindered unless there is clear and present dangers presented to others when I do partake in whatever I choose to.  Again, I still have the right to pollute my body with various other chemicals and unhealthy foods that are all similar with trans fats.  The core difference is that those others have not been targeted by some random government agency yet.
> 
> That is not proper government.



See above; you can eat whatever you want.  But when you go on the market to sell to the masses, well there are certain standards you gotta follow.  Again, it's been that way since the FDA was created, and for centuries before.  This is nothing new.


----------



## Dude111

Slacker said:
			
		

> Once again I have to ask WHY? Why does the government feel it needs to ban something?


Because they think they can push ppl around and treat them like crap........ Its part of the NWO!!


----------



## FA_Q2

> It's relevant because it's the basis of your point. I want to know how you got there. I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.
> 
> As for the FDA in the second part -- that IS exactly their job. As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).


No it is not.  You are still missing the entire concept that I am talking about.  You want to keep focusing on the why even though I gave you many already that you simply do not want to acknowledge.  The fact remains that all of that is completely irrelevant.  It does not matter why one want to do the things that they want to do.  No one is the arbiter of your motivations.  If you cannot get past that simple fact then I fear that you and I are of so different minds that we are varelse to each other.  I see your thought process as tyrannical because you seem to require that I justify myself to papa government BEFORE taking any action whereas I believe that freedom entails the government needing to justify itself before limiting my actions.

The two concepts are miles apart.


> Now you're injecting degrees where none existed. Nobody said "zero". Or any other number. We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities. It's not even a trade-off. There is nothing good in it.
> 
> Considering which, again, why do you want to eat it? I haven't seen an answer on that yet.


Again, irrelevant.  I am really tired of going over this.  I DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY MYSELF.  Period.  That is simple reality in anything that resembles freedom.  I&#8217;ll give you a reason though: I want to eat it because it makes me think of fairies which reminds me of the forest that brings me to thinking about grass and the thought of grass makes me happy.  Now, who are you or the FDA to decide that is not good enough?  Who are you to decide that my irrational thoughts need to be controlled because you don&#8217;t think it is &#8216;redeeming&#8217; enough?  The reason (and I gave you some in the last post not to mention that the FDA even gave a few in their own statements) that I, my neighbor or anyone else gives is utterly irrelevant.

That is what tyranny is &#8211; <insert agency here> deciding what I am allowed to do because they have unilaterally decided what is best for me WITHOUT my consent.  


> Sorry, I don't know what "Demolition Man" is. A new burger?


It is a corny movie reference.  This section is essentially the end of this line:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiDoOgRTpk]Now All Restaurants are Taco Bell.flv - YouTube[/ame]
Of course, the most relevant part is cut off as Stallone asks for salt and bullock informs him that it was determined table salt was bad for you and ergo it is illegal.



> RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.


No, we established nothing of the sort.  You made that statement which is flatly false.  
What part of FDA regulates tobacco products?
The Center for Tobacco Products is a section of the FDA and they regulate (surprise) tobacco products.


> We're starting to rehash the same arguments again, and they'll get the same answers again: Number One, People are doing this "on their own" only because the FDA required the labels to list them (and still does so inadequately). So like it or not, that "on their own" action was spurred by this government agency doing its job. Number Two, you are correct, they are behind the times in doing this -- which makes your resistance all the more bizarre. As we both note, it's overdue.


I am only getting the same answers because you are refusing to accept that there is a dofference in consumer notification and regulating a product or practice.  You are restating the same things without actually addressing the FACTS.  People are consuming less trans fat WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN ITS USE.  Period.  That is fact &#8211; cold and hard &#8211; yet here you are advocating that the government NEEDS to get involved to reduce the consumption of trans fats.  Do you not realize exactly how silly that is?


> Should we have sold Thalidomide then? Was it "overreach" to deny thousands of Americans the right to be born deformed?
> 
> And as far as those labels, I'll just reiterate that the labeling requirements are already inadequate (I linked that earlier), allowing some trans fats to still go through unlabeled. And they're nonexistent in restaurants.


No.  I guess that once you locate a substance that is really bad then suddenly you can start comparing x, y and z.  What happened to not comparing one substance to another?
You do realize that I have been making the same claim all along &#8211; the &#8216;dangers&#8217; of trans fats are not even in the ballpark of many legal substances not to mention not in the same league as the substance that you mention.  
As far as the labels go, I advocate (and have stated SEVERAL times) for the strongest labeling that the FDA can come up with.  Why are you then brining up that the labeling is inadequate?  If that is the case then increase labeling requirements.  That is ALL that is required.  You keep coming back to this straw man even though it has nothing to do with my points considering I already advocated for stronger labeling.


> Sorry, that's absurd. The merchant part is the active part. The consumer is completely passive here. We have no power -- they have it all. Which is why we need an advocate to control what corporations do -- corporations which, lest we forget, exist at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around (this perverse idea of making gods out of our own slaves really needs a revisit, but I digress). Here comes your concession (bold) to what the FDA is there for...


That is unequivocally crazy.  I have never been forced to purchase anything whatsoever from any corporation anywhere.  The ONLY time I am forced to purchase anything is when the government gets involved.  You have 100 percent of the power because it is YOUR money.  This very conversation is solid proof of this.  Do you really think that it is the companies choosing not to use cheap trans fats?  Hell, do you think it was even them that wanted to use them in the first place?  NO!  It was the consumer.  The consumer, by spending his/her cash on those products completely controls the market and what it produces.  It is a GROSS misunderstanding of how business works to think otherwise.  When a product falls out of demand it matters not how much the companies want to produce it because those that refuse to change disappear.  The entire reason that trans fats have been going by the wayside is that Americans are becoming health conscious after ignoring it for so long.  They have stopped purchasing those products in the same way that they used to and major companies have responded by ditching those products themselves.

To state that you have no power over your purchases is completely incorrect.  To disregard the fact that is what drives the entire market is equally incorrect.


> Oh I think there's more than zero. WAY more than zero. Read this. I linked it before but you weren't here yet. Explain to me how that got on the market if the government has more power than Monsanto. I feel like I just passed into Dada Surrealland typing those six words; it's like typing the words "his vagina"; doesn't compute.
> 
> Foxfyre has also noted, with good reason, the appointment of a former Monsanto lawyer to the FDA whose name appears in the memo in question. And we've noted the FDA inaction on things like nitrates and cottonseed and especially GMOs. Government, more power than industry??? Pleeeeeze.


Yes, government has more power over my life than any industry.  Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with this fact.

Let me ask you- what company can take your children away from you and place them in another home if you do not conform to their standards?  What industry can come into your house and search it if it suspects that there is something in your house they disapprove of?  What industry can place you into an 8x10 room for years if you decided to ingest a substance that it finds unfavorable?  What industry determines that you are not cap[able hearing the word fuck over the airwaves?  What industry determines that you will either comply with rules concerning the speed you drive, where you walk or where you will place your garbage and then take your check from you if you fail to comply?  What other industry can demand you be in a specific place at a specific time or you will see that 8x10 room again?

What industry can determine that I am a threat to its bottom line and eliminate me?  The answer is non &#8211; period.  The square peg that you are trying to fit into the round hole is the power that industry gains by influencing government.  They do this precisely because government has much more power than they do.  They try and convince government that we all need a specific product (like light bulbs) and oddly enough you support that activity so complaining about the power industry has over government is somewhat disingenuous.  To the point though, I reiterate that there is absolutely zero argument that industry has more power over me than government.


> That's a nice fantasy. If only the history and the lobbyism and the revolving door of DC didn't make it a farce. You and I have no choice here. That's an illusion.


Bullshit.  Again, I am not forced to utilize any company for anything (unless, of course it is through the government).  Maybe now you are beginning to realize why some of us see the mandate as so abhorrent &#8211; that is a prime example of the type of power you are railing against here.  The type of power that those on your side SUPPORT!


> Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top. And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line". Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass. Again.


No, that is entirely inaccurate.  That time is because the government at least realizes that deciding that something is illegal overnight has HUGE ramifications.  Ramifications that are unwarranted.  


> We don't disagree on the effective outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing. But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for their right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe. Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition. And you want to give them a pass.
> 
> Why would you do that?


I wouldn&#8217;t but that would be because I am not arguing for their rights because they have none.  A corporation does not have rights as far as I am concerned.  I, on the other hand, do and those rights include doing business and voluntarily exchanging goods as I see fit.  Just because YOU want my argument to be about something else entirely does not make it so.  Stop trying to make my argument fit your convoluted logic on rights.  I have been quite clear on what I believe in this case.


> It is impossible to "enjoy". It has no taste. It has no benefit. It has no nothing. You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application. We don't live in such a world. And further, there's no regulation on "you". It's a regulation on the food company. You can eat whatever you want. As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.


Sorry, but that does not fly.  You have shot nothing down.

In one statement you declare that a company has control over you (even though they cannot force you to do anything) and I would have to assume that logic stems from some concept of availability.  Then you state the exact opposite here.

The regulation is on me because it limits my ability to acquire what I want.  That limit is essentially universal to boot so that logic is completely twisted.  I guess you could claim that the government is perfectly within its rights to make all radio illegal except Christian talk radio.  They are, after all, not limiting YOU in any way at all, just what you are capable of getting access too&#8230;


----------



## Politico

Good grief this is getting sillier and sillier.


----------



## Pogo

FA_Q2 said:


> It's relevant because it's the basis of your point. I want to know how you got there. I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.
> 
> As for the FDA in the second part -- that IS exactly their job. As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  You are still missing the entire concept that I am talking about.  You want to keep focusing on the why even though I gave you many already that you simply do not want to acknowledge.  The fact remains that all of that is completely irrelevant.  It does not matter why one want to do the things that they want to do.  No one is the arbiter of your motivations.  If you cannot get past that simple fact then I fear that you and I are of so different minds that we are varelse to each other.  I see your thought process as tyrannical because you seem to require that I justify myself to papa government BEFORE taking any action whereas I believe that freedom entails the government needing to justify itself before limiting my actions.
Click to expand...


"Government" has nothing to do with this particular point.  I'm not asking you to justify anything to the government, but to me.  I'm asking you to justify your point rhetorically.  Again, if you can't articulate a justification, then you just might not have a justifiable position.  You need to make your case -- that's what's missing.  You're not required to do so, but if you don't -- you simply haven't made a case.

Not that that puts you in an unusual position-- the question of "what are you deprived of" had been open throughout this thread.  No one else has come up with an answer either.  That's what the FDA comment period is for -- someone to come up with that answer.



FA_Q2 said:


> The two concepts are miles apart.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're injecting degrees where none existed. Nobody said "zero". Or any other number. We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities. It's not even a trade-off. There is nothing good in it.
> 
> Considering which, again, why do you want to eat it? I haven't seen an answer on that yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, irrelevant.  I am really tired of going over this.  I DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY MYSELF.  Period.  That is simple reality in anything that resembles freedom.  I&#8217;ll give you a reason though: I want to eat it because it makes me think of fairies which reminds me of the forest that brings me to thinking about grass and the thought of grass makes me happy.  Now, who are you or the FDA to decide that is not good enough?  Who are you to decide that my irrational thoughts need to be controlled because you don&#8217;t think it is &#8216;redeeming&#8217; enough?  The reason (and I gave you some in the last post not to mention that the FDA even gave a few in their own statements) that I, my neighbor or anyone else gives is utterly irrelevant.
> 
> That is what tyranny is &#8211; <insert agency here> deciding what I am allowed to do because they have unilaterally decided what is best for me WITHOUT my consent.
Click to expand...


I'll have to take this as a concession that there is no such justification then, per above.  Sorry, you don't get to claim "tyranny" on a point you can't justify because a freaking food agency does the job it's always been there to do.  And since that agency is put there by Congress, which is an elected body, it's not at all without our consent.  And _again _again, if you still object, we're in the 60-day comment period within which you can make your case TO the FDA.  But you're gonna have to come up with something more of a basis than you've shown here since basically all you've posited is "I don't wanna".

This is real life, not Government Conspiracy Comics.  There are definitely times when government overreaches. That doesn't mean _everything _the government does is overreach.  Part of government's role is the safety and security of its people, and that means ensuring the water is safe to drink, it means ensuring the food and drugs sold meet safety standards, that planes in the air don't fly into each other, et cetera.  What you're arguing here is that one particular food chemical should *not *meet safety standards.

Again -- why woud you do that?  This is absurd.




FA_Q2 said:


> RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we established nothing of the sort.  You made that statement which is flatly false.
> What part of FDA regulates tobacco products?
> The Center for Tobacco Products is a section of the FDA and they regulate (surprise) tobacco products.
Click to expand...


Established here -- Post 506, November 9:


Pogo said:


> *2000* - The U. S. Supreme Court, upholding an earlier decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al., ruled 5-4 that FDA *does not have authority to regulate tobacco as a drug*. Within weeks of this ruling, FDA revokes its final rule, issued in 1996, that restricted the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents, and that determined that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are combination products consisting of a drug (nicotine) and device components intended to deliver nicotine to the body.





FA_Q2 said:


> I am only getting the same answers because you are refusing to accept that there is a dofference in consumer notification and regulating a product or practice.  You are restating the same things without actually addressing the FACTS.  People are consuming less trans fat WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN ITS USE.  Period.  That is fact &#8211; cold and hard &#8211; yet here you are advocating that the government NEEDS to get involved to reduce the consumption of trans fats.  Do you not realize exactly how silly that is?



I'm forced to repeat the same answer yet again-- it's _not _without government intervention at all; the FDA _required _those labels (which again don't cover every instance of trans fats), and THAT is what has reduced its use.  The food manufacturers certainly aren't going to police themselves, because, once again we repeat this too-- FOOD SAFETY IS NOT THEIR INTEREST.  Food *profits *are.  There would have been no public reduction in trans fats use without this previous government action.  So if you're against the current proposal "denying" you something you can't define, then you have to also be against the previous action that spurred companies to reduce their own TF content after gummint made an issue out of it.

Drug companies, same thing; that's why I bring up Thalidomide, because if not for the denial of the FDA (which didn't happen elsewhere in the world) we would have had Thalidomide babies popping out like they were in the rest of the world.  Why didn't we?  _*Because the FDA did its job to deny the public its "choice" to have derfomed babies, that's why*_.  Tyranny!  The horror!  

The fuller story on this was in Post 508.

By your logic we should have just passed Thalidomide in the name of Randism.  I've got a friend who's terminally ill because the FDA _*wasn't*_ as vigilant with another drug (Fen-Phen).  I'm sure it makes her feel better that the tyranny of gummint overreach was averted, granting her the right not to breathe.  Please.  Somebody's got to advocate against the tyranny of irresponsible profiteering, and I guess with so many people intoxicating themselves on Ayn Rand's half-baked musings that falls to me.  




FA_Q2 said:


> You do realize that I have been making the same claim all along &#8211; the &#8216;dangers&#8217; of trans fats are not even in the ballpark of many legal substances not to mention not in the same league as the substance that you mention.



Irrelevant.  We're not here to discuss all substances ever.  This is about trans fats.  Period.  You keep trying to deflect.  Stay on topic.



FA_Q2 said:


> As far as the labels go, I advocate (and have stated SEVERAL times) for the strongest labeling that the FDA can come up with.  Why are you then brining up that the labeling is inadequate?  If that is the case then increase labeling requirements.  That is ALL that is required.  You keep coming back to this straw man even though it has nothing to do with my points considering I already advocated for stronger labeling.



Because as also noted upthread, those labeling requirements don't apply to everything. If you'd rather the FDA mandate labeling all TFs everywhere PLUS restaurants, you're in the comment period.  But the bottom line is STILL that the action simply requires trans fats to justify their own safety, and that scrutiny is what you're arguing against, so that's the case you're going to have to make.  And making a case that a potentially harmful-to-the public substance should not be proven safe is a task I don't envy.

For a flesh-out of the label inadequacy question I refer you to post 524:


Pogo said:


> For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fat&#8212;the worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the body&#8212;was found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases &#8220;partially hydrogenated vegetable oil&#8221; and &#8220;vegetable shortening&#8221; meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence.  Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats).
> 
> ... Of course, *many foods don&#8217;t come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fats&#8212;and, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods*&#8212;many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. California&#8217;s governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a &#8220;Trans Fat Help Center&#8221; to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.
> 
> -- Harvard School of Public Health​



--- you'll note, once again, that proposed legislations mentioned on state and municipal levels once again are aimed at food producers -- not consumers.  So don't even go there.




FA_Q2 said:


> That is unequivocally crazy.  I have never been forced to purchase anything whatsoever from any corporation anywhere.  The ONLY time I am forced to purchase anything is when the government gets involved.



Put the strawman down, nice and slow.   I didn't say you were forced to buy something; I said they have control over what they sell.  That's not "force"; it's power.  It's owning all the marbles.  And if your last sentence is a reference to the ACA, I fully agree.



FA_Q2 said:


> You have 100 percent of the power because it is YOUR money.  This very conversation is solid proof of this.



Your money (or mine) can only buy what is sold.  When something either is not sold, or is sold only in a form you don't want, that's all the choice you have.  As an example I mentioned my own preference for sugar free tomato sauce.  Doesn't exist.



FA_Q2 said:


> Do you really think that it is the companies choosing not to use cheap trans fats?  Hell, do you think it was even them that wanted to use them in the first place?  NO!  It was the consumer.  The consumer, by spending his/her cash on those products completely controls the market and what it produces.  It is a GROSS misunderstanding of how business works to think otherwise.  When a product falls out of demand it matters not how much the companies want to produce it because those that refuse to change disappear.



Good, let's do this.
No, I don't think it's Big Food taking the *initiative *to eliminate/reduce TFs; it was government action on labeling that brought attention, and they in turn responded to _that_.  Without that intervention we'd be ingesting more on the level we used to, and dying accordingly, (see Harvard School of Public Health insert above) because as long as there was some profit motive in it, the food company doesn't care -- that's the FDA's job.  The consumer didn't have jack shit to do with that.  As noted above, companies can and will disguise undesirable substances to slip under the radar (you want to talk tyranny? hellloooo)... basically you're arguing against "government tyranny" so that _corporate _tyranny can just do whatever the fuck it wants.  Not on our watch, hell no.

This idea that the consumer is somehow in charge is profoudly illusory.  The merchant leads; we have no choice but to take what's offered.  Example: Remember the mass demonstrations in Detroit in the 1990s where we the public demanded that cars be bloated up into upside-down bathtubs on truck frames so that we could pay more money for less safe lower mileage cars?  Me neither.



FA_Q2 said:


> The entire reason that trans fats have been going by the wayside is that Americans are becoming health conscious after ignoring it for so long.  They have stopped purchasing those products in the same way that they used to and major companies have responded by ditching those products themselves.



Not the "entire" reason at all.  For the umpteenth time, without the watchdog action, that consumer choice doesn't happen because we had no way to know.  We're bombarded with advertising at every turn telling us why we should buy Zippo donuts; we get nothing of the sort about why we should not.



FA_Q2 said:


> To state that you have no power over your purchases is completely incorrect.  To disregard the fact that is what drives the entire market is equally incorrect.



Refuted above.



FA_Q2 said:


> Yes, government has more power over my life than any industry.  Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with this fact.



My example has everything to do with it.  It's a direct look at a case where a food substance was ushered in by corrupt government officials who looked the other way.  I can't think of a more relevant (if inconvenient) example.  Please don't tell me you're unaware of the DC revolving door and lobbyism.  Michael Taylor? Tim Geithner? Hank Paulsen?  Any of these conflict-of-interest names ring a bell?  Now *that *is government overreach -- or more correctly, government corruption.

You like to look up at the government puppet strings on its people; that's a good thing.  We need that.  Now look further up at the puppet strings _above that level_, i.e. the strings above _them_.  I'm not stating something new and revolutionary here.



FA_Q2 said:


> Let me ask you- what company can take your children away from you and place them in another home if you do not conform to their standards?  What industry can come into your house and search it if it suspects that there is something in your house they disapprove of?  What industry can place you into an 8x10 room for years if you decided to ingest a substance that it finds unfavorable?  What industry determines that you are not cap[able hearing the word fuck over the airwaves?  What industry determines that you will either comply with rules concerning the speed you drive, where you walk or where you will place your garbage and then take your check from you if you fail to comply?  What other industry can demand you be in a specific place at a specific time or you will see that 8x10 room again?
> 
> What industry can determine that I am a threat to its bottom line and eliminate me?  The answer is non &#8211; period.  The square peg that you are trying to fit into the round hole is the power that industry gains by influencing government.  They do this precisely because government has much more power than they do.  They try and convince government that we all need a specific product (like light bulbs) and oddly enough you support that activity so complaining about the power industry has over government is somewhat disingenuous.  To the point though, I reiterate that there is absolutely zero argument that industry has more power over me than government.



Those are government domains, rightly or wrongly, and some of those are, as in the Aspartame example noted above, subject to heavy influence by those interests that stand to gain financially, such as prisons, radar gun manufacturers and the like.  But you're comparing apples and oranges here anyway; FDA doesn't lock people in rooms or take your check.  It polices what _food purveyers_ purvey.  That has nothing to do with what you and I do.

And just to note one that is in my field of expertise, nobody says you can't hear the word _fuck_ on the air -- doesn't work that way.  The way it _does _work:  Station X broadcasts the word _fuck_.  What happens?  Nothing. Not until Citizen Y files a complaint, which is then investigated by FCC (it's _reactive_).  If that complaint is found to have merit, then the station might be fined.  If egregious and expansive, the station may have its license not-renewed (I'm not sure this has ever happened in history but it's possible).  But that license was already granted as a public trust to use the airwaves which are already defined as belonging to the people, so corporation-worship is again misplaced here.  And by the way we give them that public airspace for free.

I guess the point of the above paragraph is that gummint is a bit more complex than the automatically fascist ogre you try to paint it as.  It just isn't that simple.




FA_Q2 said:


> Bullshit.  Again, I am not forced to utilize any company for anything (unless, of course it is through the government).  Maybe now you are beginning to realize why some of us see the mandate as so abhorrent &#8211; that is a prime example of the type of power you are railing against here.  The type of power that those on your side SUPPORT!



? Huh?
Once again ----- are you a food company?
And if you are, what is the case that you can inject foods sold to the public that don't need to pass a safety test?

That's the whole issue here.  Nothing more. Until you address this you're dancing.  I mean conspiratorial soap opera is entertaining and all (I guess) but this is just launching rhetorical deep space missiles off the launchpad of rationality.



FA_Q2 said:


> Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top. And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line". Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is entirely inaccurate.  That time is because the government at least realizes that deciding that something is illegal overnight has HUGE ramifications.  Ramifications that are unwarranted.
Click to expand...


Except for the word "unwarrranted" we just said the same thing.  



FA_Q2 said:


> We don't disagree on the effective outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing. But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for their right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe. Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition. And you want to give them a pass.
> 
> Why would you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn&#8217;t but that would be because I am not arguing for their rights because they have none.  A corporation does not have rights as far as I am concerned.  I, on the other hand, do and those rights include doing business and voluntarily exchanging goods as I see fit.
Click to expand...


Then why are you wasting my time with this whole line of argument?  Don't take that wrong, I respect your deductive reasoning as you know, but you're completely conflating an action on an industry into an action on the people.  It has nothing to do with you as a consumer -- you still eat what you want.  Matter of fact you just went to great pains to make that point above, that *you *have the choice.  You still do.

And yes you are arguing for *their *rights to bypass safety standards, _*because that's exactly what this proposal puts an end to*_.

So .... wtf? 



FA_Q2 said:


> Just because YOU want my argument to be about something else entirely does not make it so.  Stop trying to make my argument fit your convoluted logic on rights.  I have been quite clear on what I believe in this case.



Not really, but the FDA proposal is clear enough.  Why can't you just call it what it is without inventing doomsday scenaria over trans fats, of all trivialities?  Again, you have to also argue for the right to dysentery in your water and carcinogens in your food and Thalidomide babies and by the way all the airport control towers have to come down.  Gummint overreach all.  Same logic.




FA_Q2 said:


> It is impossible to "enjoy". It has no taste. It has no benefit. It has no nothing. You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application. We don't live in such a world. And further, there's no regulation on "you". It's a regulation on the food company. You can eat whatever you want. As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that does not fly.  You have shot nothing down.
> 
> In one statement you declare that a company has control over you (even though they cannot force you to do anything) and I would have to assume that logic stems from some concept of availability.  Then you state the exact opposite here.
Click to expand...


Explain-- how are those opposites?  I think you're the one with the conflict here...



FA_Q2 said:


> The regulation is on me because it limits my ability to acquire what I want.  That limit is essentially universal to boot so that logic is completely twisted.  I guess you could claim that the government is perfectly within its rights to make all radio illegal except Christian talk radio.  They are, after all, not limiting YOU in any way at all, just what you are capable of getting access too&#8230;



The regulation STILL has nothing to do with you; that hasn't changed.  It limits the ability of _industry _to _sell_ what it wants -- which has been the case, once again, for centuries, everywhere.  But what you _acquire _is still your business.  This isn't comparable to cannabis as you're trying to imply.  Nobody's about to bang on your door to search your house for trans fat foods and it baffles me that someone of your intellect would even entertain such a silly idea.

And no I would clearly never make such a case.  Government has no say in broadcast content, and that's as it should be.  And the comparison is absurd anyway; I might not like country music as a choice, but hearing it isn't going to give me and others heart attacks.


----------



## Pogo

Politico said:


> Good grief this is getting sillier and sillier.



I'll trans to that.


----------



## alan1

FDA: Trans Fats Unsafe, to be Banned in Foods | WebProNews
snip,


> In making its decision, the FDA pointed to an Institute of Medicine report that states there is no safe level of consumption for trans fats...


So the government will ban a product because "there is no safe level of consumption".  In other words, that product will be removed from the market because it is unsafe at any level of use.
So, explain to me, why is cigarette smoking not banned at the federal level?
I wonder what the safe level of tobacco smoke is, as deemed by the federal government?
Perhaps it's the tax revenue received from tobacco users.  Is that the "safe acceptable level of consumption"?
Federal government = Liars, thieves and hypocrites.


----------



## novasteve

So they should tax the hell out if transfats first?


----------



## Pogo

alan1 said:


> FDA: Trans Fats Unsafe, to be Banned in Foods | WebProNews
> snip,
> 
> 
> 
> In making its decision, the FDA pointed to an Institute of Medicine report that states there is no safe level of consumption for trans fats...
> 
> 
> 
> So the government will ban a product because "there is no safe level of consumption".  In other words, that product will be removed from the market because it is unsafe at any level of use.
> So, explain to me, why is cigarette smoking not banned at the federal level?
> I wonder what the safe level of tobacco smoke is, as deemed by the federal government?
> Perhaps it's the tax revenue received from tobacco users.  Is that the "safe acceptable level of consumption"?
> Federal government = Liars, thieves and hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Easy answer, as established upthread: SCOTUS ruled that the FDA has no authority over tobacco.  Which then in the larger picture, proves your last line.

For the record, FDA does not propose to "ban" trans fats; it proposes to take them off the GRAS list.  And that would require them to prove themselves safe, which by their nature artificial trans fats could not do (natural ones are not involved).

There's a wide difference between banning something and requiring it to prove itself safe.  A lot of contrarians here would prefer to pretend it's the former going on, just so they can argue a marooned ideological point.  But it isn't.


----------



## novasteve

Is water on the gras list given many people have died from it?


----------



## Pogo

novasteve said:


> Is water on the gras list given many people have died from it?



Water has never killed anybody.  People have however died from idiocy.


----------



## paulitician

How long before the Communists/Progressives ban Thanksgiving? Have a happy one...while you still can.


----------



## Pogo

paulitician said:


> How long before the Communists/Progressives ban Thanksgiving? Have a happy one...while you still can.



Unfortunately neither the FDA nor any other entity has the power to ban Drama Queening... 

Amazing -- even on a national holiday the conspiracy-obsessed find a way to give the gift of paranoia.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Black_Label said:


> Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.



Are you biased against fat trannies?


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Water has never killed anybody.



Oh, good.  Then all these people are still alive.

QuickStats: Average Annual Death Rates from Drowning,*? by Sex and Age Group ? United States,§ 1999?2010


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Water has never killed anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good.  Then all these people are still alive.
> 
> QuickStats: Average Annual Death Rates from Drowning,*? by Sex and Age Group ? United States,§ 1999?2010
Click to expand...


As far as the content of water they may as well be, yes.  Because those people died of _drowning_.  Which means not that they got water but that they _didn't get_ air.

Oh sorry-- did you think Trannysteve had a point?


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Water has never killed anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good.  Then all these people are still alive.
> 
> QuickStats: Average Annual Death Rates from Drowning,*? by Sex and Age Group ? United States,§ 1999?2010
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the content of water they may as well be, yes.  Because those people died of _drowning_.  Which means not that they got water but that they _didn't get_ air.
> 
> Oh sorry-- did you think Trannysteve had a point?
Click to expand...

No.  Just playing with you.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, good.  Then all these people are still alive.
> 
> QuickStats: Average Annual Death Rates from Drowning,*? by Sex and Age Group ? United States,§ 1999?2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the content of water they may as well be, yes.  Because those people died of _drowning_.  Which means not that they got water but that they _didn't get_ air.
> 
> Oh sorry-- did you think Trannysteve had a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Just playing with you.
Click to expand...




blub blub


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Water has never killed anybody.  People have however died from idiocy.



Try again...

{Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by over-hydration.}

Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

