Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
Again with the argumentum absurdum you gutless hack.
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.
BBC News - US moves to ban trans fats in foods
But you are still free to have HIV and fuck dudes up the ass
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Want a tissue? A blankey? You seem to ignore facts and opt for emotions. Dont be that girl.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sodium nitrates aren't banned in foods.
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
So now the FDA is considered an "enemy" too?
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.
