BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[TemplarKormac]

 

[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.

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?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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]

Want to hang a point on that TK?

We stand ready.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

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

 

[Mustang]

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.

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]

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

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

I'm just sayin...

 

[Spoonman]

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.

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Want to hang a point on that TK?

We stand ready.

Try reading post 25.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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:

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?

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[martybegan]

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.

And here's post 25:

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?

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.