BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[Jarlaxle]

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.

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

And please stop yelling.

 

[Pogo]

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

Anyone? Bueller? No?

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Cap'm.

Duh.

 

[Pogo]

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!)

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

Lightweight. Come armed next time.

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?

See above. Ad hominem, subtract credibilium.

 

[Pogo]

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:

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.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

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

Thanks, Cap'm.

Duh.

Yet the FDA is meaningless here, because contamination of the beans is utterly irrelevant to the final product. The FDA does NOTHING to make chocolate safer.

 

[martybegan]

And here's post 25:


You don't see the fundamental error you're still making here?

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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

Lightweight. Come armed next time.

Aspartame needs an argument? Here's one. Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.

How's that for justification?

 

[Pogo]

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

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

I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.

Again -- ad hominem, subtract credibilium. The logic stands unless you can refute it. Ad hominem doesn't.

 

[Pogo]

We were all too busy laughing at you.

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

Lightweight. Come armed next time.

Aspartame needs an argument? Here's one. Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.

How's that for justification?

So "diet" is the same thing as "aspartame"...

Thanks for that reminder of why you're Finger-boy.

 

[martybegan]

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

I'm not sure whether to blame you not getting it on willfull ignorance, or outright stupidity. I'm guessing the latter.

Again -- ad hominem, subtract credibilium. The logic stands unless you can refute it. Ad hominem doesn't.

You suck off goats. Now THATS an ad hominem. Calling out your 1) ignornace or 2) idoicy is not really.

 

[FJO]

Obviously, these people at the FDA are not Jewish or they never gave themselves the pleasure to taste succulent and delicious food dripping with heavenly-tasting fat.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/jewish-elders-lift-6000year-ham-ban,992/

Somebody should tell them that it is better to eat fat and die at the age of 80 years than eat crap and live to be 81.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You suck off goats. Now THATS an ad hominem. Calling out your 1) ignornace or 2) idoicy is not really.

Dayum....

Pogo, THAT'S not the way you're supposed to milk them...

 

[g5000]

But back to the trans fat issue.

In time all truths are revealed.

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

And yet the FDA is not banning nicotine.

Nor nitrites. Nor sulfites. Nor high fructose corn syrup.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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!)

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

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

Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it. (If there were, it would be made.) If you care, you will make your own. If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.

 

[g5000]

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

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

Forget the meatpacking industry: most WINES contain sulfites!

Indeed. We can add California, New York, Washington, and Oregon to the list.

 

[g5000]

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

Bullshit.

Here is a 1940 German study connecting lung cancer to smoking: http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/bwho/v84n6/v84n6a21.pdf

The English translation starts on page 4.

A third statistically proven fact was that 95% of patients with lung or throat cancer were heavy smokers.

These observations made the carcinogenic effect of tobacco fairly obvious. However, this hypothesis was based on clinical observations, and needed to be proved experimentally.

Over the past few years we have provided such proof through a series of experimental studies and present a short overview here.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

Because there is, clearly, no significant market for it. (If there were, it would be made.) If you care, you will make your own. If you do not, you clearly don't care all that much.

Thank you, Captain Point-Sail-Over-Head.

 

[Pogo]

But back to the trans fat issue.

In time all truths are revealed.

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

And yet the FDA is not banning nicotine.

Nor nitrites. Nor sulfites. Nor high fructose corn syrup.

Nor aspartame, nor cottonseed oil, nor GMOs, nor rBST.

This thread is like watching a flood levee spring several leaks and then hearing wanton wags complain that part of the levee is still holding.

 

[Vox]

We were all too busy laughing at you.

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

Lightweight. Come armed next time.

Aspartame needs an argument? Here's one. Diabetics will die if the drink soda with sugar in it. Diet soda is the only kind they can drink.

How's that for justification?

Not true.