BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah I'm afraid it is but then again you don't even know what sarcasm is so consider the source. Point remains, you offered no refutation, therefore it stands.

 

[Vox]

For the yealling guy - harm of tobacco was known even to American Indians who were chewing it - the connection between it's chewing and cancers of the oral cavity.

and long before the warning appeared on the cigarette packs.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving. He also implies here that people must drink soda in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?

 

[Vox]

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.

no, sugar is simply a preservative.

BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.

when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.

Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.

 

[Vox]

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.

It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?

you are wrong. FDA is regulating what food industry can use for the production of food, but you can produce your transfats at home if you like them - which you do not, since they neither taste better, nor are available naturally.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

no, sugar is simply a preservative.

BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.

when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.

Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.

No, sugar allows them to use lower-grade tomatoes!

Again: if there were a market for it, it would be made!

 

[Vox]

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.

Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving. He also implies here that people must drink soda in the first place.

diet soda is actually much worse than the usual one. If there is no choice otherwise, it is better to drink a standard one, not the diet one.

if you really, really, really NEED to drink soda.

It's a cultural thing - if you grow up not drinking it, you never acquire the taste for it. I drink water only, and preferably not carbonated - not becasue I am so anti-soda, but because I do not consider it tasty. If you want your kids eat healthy - never ever expose them to junk food - and they won't develop the taste for it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?

you are wrong. FDA is regulating what food industry can use for the production of food, but you can produce your transfats at home if you like them - which you do not, since they neither taste better, nor are available naturally.

I'd like a little more detail than just 'you're wrong.' How can the government just 'ban' something or anything it wills? This ultimately ends with the consumer, and it applies to the consumer just as it does to the producer.

 

[FJO]

Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".

So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.

So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.

 

[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.

It is. In a roundabout way, they are telling us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Or are you too blind to see that?

No more than the food companies' failure to make a sugar-free tomato sauce is telling me what I can and can't eat. As somebody noted -- I could make my own. Just as you could make your own transfats. Regardless of the fact that given countless invitations, nobody has come up with any reason you would want to do that, thereby making this cause utterly pointless.

What you claimed was "Since when should the government tell people what to eat?". It doesn't. Why is your position so weak that you have to twist it into something it isn't? Better question: since it is so weak, isn't it time to abandon it? Still better question: what would you miss personally about trans fats?

 

[Vox]

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.

no, sugar is simply a preservative.

BTW, simple sugar is much better than high fructose corn syrup.

when you make your home canned veggies and jams ( haven't in years, but remember the process) - you use sugar and salt and vinegar as preservatives.

Industry uses all the new and cheap ingredients which will make storage longer, but that does not mean those preservatives are going to be better for you.

No, sugar allows them to use lower-grade tomatoes!

Again: if there were a market for it, it would be made!

maybe. and of course, if the market can be made, it will be - nothing wrong with that, but one should not consider regulating artificial market to be an offence on the Constitutional rights.
It is a business often involving cheating the consumer - therefore I don't understand the outrage on slapping the greedy businesses when they should be slapped. it is long overdue.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sure it is. They may not die right away, but they will die an early death. Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.

 

[Vox]

Let us not forget that the motto of the so-called scientific community is "Publish or Perish".

So, if the current scientific wisdom is that eggs are bad for you, you can bet that some pinhead WILL publish something saying that eggs good for you, or vice versa. Same thing with butter. Or red meat. Or any meat, period. Or just about anything that tastes good.

So, ignore these do-gooders and enjoy life. And to paraphrase some royal elite predecessor or these all-knowing pinheads, let THEM eat crap.

nah, eggs have been vindicated.
It's the offensive on the carbs which is fashinable nowadays

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving. He also implies here that people must drink soda in the first place.

Your belief in your ability to reason is grossly inflated. I never implied any such thing.

Consuming large amounts of sugar will eventually kill a diabetic. Why do you supposed doctors tell them not to eat sugar?

 

[FJO]

There is no need for government to step in and ban food of any kind.

In the last 30 or so years smokers quit smoking because they felt compelled to do so, seeing not only the evidence of cancer caused by smoking, but also realizing that their stench offended people around them.

When people see that eating fat others around them, they will stop eating fat, just as smokers quit smoking.

 

[Vox]

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.

Sure it is. They may not die right away, but they will die an early death. Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.

no, it is not.

even diabetics can eat some sugar, if other conditions are preserved.

Do not take it as an absolution and go eat cake and soda if you are diabetic.
But if your HgbA1C is lower than 6, you can slurp some soda time to time to make the grass greener on your side

 

[bripat9643]

Not true.

Finger-boy is the fallacy hunter's gift that keeps on giving. He also implies here that people must drink soda in the first place.

diet soda is actually much worse than the usual one. If there is no choice otherwise, it is better to drink a standard one, not the diet one.

if you really, really, really NEED to drink soda.

It's a cultural thing - if you grow up not drinking it, you never acquire the taste for it. I drink water only, and preferably not carbonated - not becasue I am so anti-soda, but because I do not consider it tasty. If you want your kids eat healthy - never ever expose them to junk food - and they won't develop the taste for it.

How is diet soda worse than sodas with sugar in them?

 

[bripat9643]

Not true.

Sure it is. They may not die right away, but they will die an early death. Furthermore, they could go blind, have their feet amputated, have a heart attack, have a stroke, or a number of other unpleasant effects from eating sugar.

no, it is not.

even diabetics can eat some sugar, if other conditions are preserved.

Do not take it as an absolution and go eat cake and soda if you are diabetic.
But if your HgbA1C is lower than 6, you can slurp some soda time to time to make the grass greener on your side

You can also eat strychnine if you don't eat too much of it. I knew your explanation was going to be the usual idiocy.

 

[Vox]

There is no need for government to step in and ban food of any kind.

In the last 30 or so years smokers quit smoking because they felt compelled to do so, seeing not only the evidence of cancer caused by smoking, but also realizing that their stench offended people around them.

When people see that eating fat others around them, they will stop eating fat, just as smokers quit smoking.

it is NOT THE FOOD !!!!!

it is food ingredients which were introduced by food industry for the reason of price.
it can and should be regulated and prohibited if proven harmful.
Which it was.