BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[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.

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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

No, do what thou wilt...

 

[Pogo]

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

No, do what thou wilt...

Thelemist.

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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..

That, I agree with.

'She', I stand corrected, thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

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..

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]

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?

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.