BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

-- 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.

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

:cuckoo:

Again with the argumentum absurdum you gutless hack.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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

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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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

Translation: "Still no answer"

Heard you the first time actually.
 
-- 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.

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

:cuckoo:

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.
 
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.

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.

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?
 
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.

:cuckoo:

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.

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

:cuckoo:

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.

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. :thup:

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.
 
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.

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?

argumentum ad absurdium is all you got isnt it?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Its ok you still have your emotions
 
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. :thup:

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’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....)

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

Nor are trans fats..
 
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..

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?

Well.. no.. it is not
 
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.

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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top