BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[ScienceRocks]

So defund the FDA and repeal all of the safety standards.

 

[Pogo]

Again - horses%it.

Barry is currently destroying the most effective healthcare that has EVER existed on the face of the earth. Dismantling it in front of our eyes and you say that his "Big Brother" government can ban the American people from exercising the own good judgement but they CAN'T ban a tobacco company from producing products KNOWN to cause death!?!?!

Again, Horses%it.

I never brought up tobacco. You did. Nor does ACA have squat to do with any of this.

Do you not know how to construct a rational argument at all?? Assuming not, why are you here?

DUMBASS - I brought up tobacco! And I'll post anything I damn well please. Answer the damned question.

Go fuck yourself. There's your answer.

 

[daveman]

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized

 

[Pogo]

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized

Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association. Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix trans and started drooling. We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread. Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats per se (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list. The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of 1958". The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years. You were just a wee bit late. Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank. How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave. Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave

 

[Mustang]

If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.

And if you see Big Brother in the freaking FDA, you live in a comic book.

These people are fools. The bad guys are the ones who look for and find ways around the FDA so they can market and sell products which the FDA has no power to control. So, as a for instance, look at the whole supplemental nutrition, vitamins, and herbal remedies which have sprung up over the last 20 plus years. They make all kinds of claims which do not have to be backed by scientific studies, NOT because they're motivated by altruism, but because they're trying to make fast money off other people and their health problems.

If and when I ever see or hear conservatives fight for the little guys who are getting ripped off instead of the corporations and fly by night companies who are doing the ripping off (in the name of freedom, no less) then I'll be impressed.

Until such time, I'm not impressed at all.

 

[daveman]

Read more, post less.
[/B]

Good idea. Try it sometime.

Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

coffin nail noun

Definition of COFFIN NAIL

slang
: cigarette
First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL

1888

Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully. Don't bother.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So should the FDA control the safety of foods?

 

[daveman]

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized

Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association. Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix trans and started drooling. We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread. Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats per se (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list. The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of 1958". The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years. You were just a wee bit late. Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank. How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave. Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious. Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you. Idiot progressive smokes pot every day. Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story: Idiot progressives are idiots.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association. Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix trans and started drooling. We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread. Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats per se (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list. The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of 1958". The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years. You were just a wee bit late. Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank. How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave. Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious. Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you. Idiot progressive smokes pot every day. Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story: Idiot progressives are idiots.

So is smoking cigs and drinking. Fact.

 

[daveman]

So is smoking cigs and drinking. Fact.

No, shit, Captain Obvious.

 

[Pogo]

Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association. Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix trans and started drooling. We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread. Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats per se (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list. The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of 1958". The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years. You were just a wee bit late. Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank. How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave. Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious. Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you. Idiot progressive smokes pot every day. Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story: Idiot progressives are idiots.

Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1. Check.

To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it. Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).

Thanks for playing Dave. Nobody does it better.

 

[koshergrl]

If you disagree with Big Brother, you clearly hate America and children. You're probably an evil Al Kater too.

And if you see Big Brother in the freaking FDA, you live in a comic book.

These people are fools. The bad guys are the ones who look for and find ways around the FDA so they can market and sell products which the FDA has no power to control. So, as a for instance, look at the whole supplemental nutrition, vitamins, and herbal remedies which have sprung up over the last 20 plus years. They make all kinds of claims which do not have to be backed by scientific studies, NOT because they're motivated by altruism, but because they're trying to make fast money off other people and their health problems.

If and when I ever see or hear conservatives fight for the little guys who are getting ripped off instead of the corporations and fly by night companies who are doing the ripping off (in the name of freedom, no less) then I'll be impressed.

Until such time, I'm not impressed at all.

All that garbage is produced, marketed, sold by and to progressive dingbats.

 

[Mustang]

Read more, post less.
[/B]

Good idea. Try it sometime.

Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

coffin nail noun

Definition of COFFIN NAIL

slang
: cigarette
First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL

1888

Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully. Don't bother.

And to THIS day, one hundred and twenty-five years later, cigarette company executives have YET to admit a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease.

How do you account for that?

 

[koshergrl]

Who cares? If you know it's poison, don't smoke it.

 

[daveman]

Cool! A red-tufted Guilt by Association. Haven't seen one of those all day.

Well here's part of your problem, Dave .... it's not a "ban".

First of all you gotta consider the source... a guy who's completely hung up on transsexuals who saw a story with the prefix trans and started drooling. We notice he's no longer here to defend his thread. Nor is it "BREAKING" - FDA opened a 60-day comment period on the idea.

If carried through, what it would do would be to take trans fats off the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. What that would do is not "ban" them but subject them to the food additive tolerance requirements established by the FFDCA (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), which, by presence on the GRAS list, they are now exempt.

Since nobody here argues for trans fats per se (the invitation has been on the table for days for anyone to find any benefit whatsoever and has gone unanswered), we can only conclude that what y'all are against is the idea of the GRAS list. The GRAS list is an amendment, so by all means write your Congresscritter to voice your opposition to the amend...

DAMN.

"Food Additives Amendment of 1958". The one that's been keeping your food safe for the last 55+ years. You were just a wee bit late. Signed into law by that famous Marxist President Dwight Eisenhower.
Ah, that's when Republicans were free to be Republicans and Ayn Rand was a crank. How far we've come.

(^^sarcasm alert^^)

So here's your question, Dave. Actually two:

1) what will you be missing out on by not having your RDA of trans fat? and

2) what does it mean to associate smoking pot with being against trans fats?

TIA, Dave

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious. Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you. Idiot progressive smokes pot every day. Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story: Idiot progressives are idiots.

Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1. Check.

To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it. Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).

Thanks for playing Dave. Nobody does it better.

Fallacy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In your case, you think it means "something I can't argue against, so I'll just pretend to be superior and talk down to people".

How's that workin' out for ya?

 

[daveman]

Read more, post less.
[/B]

Good idea. Try it sometime.

Coffin nail - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

coffin nail noun

Definition of COFFIN NAIL

slang
: cigarette
First Known Use of COFFIN NAIL

1888

Other progressives have tried arguing with Merriam-Webster, but not successfully. Don't bother.

And to THIS day, one hundred and twenty-five years later, cigarette company executives have YET to admit a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease.

How do you account for that?

I don't, nor do I have to.

Whattya think about that?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you've made it quite plain you want the government to make all your decisions for you.

Not everyone is as weak-minded as you, though.

As for the image, I thought it was painfully obvious. Guess not.

Idiot progressive supports banning things that are bad for you. Idiot progressive smokes pot every day. Pot is bad for you.

The moral of the story: Idiot progressives are idiots.

Let the record show that Dave had no answer to question 1. Check.

To question 2 he offers a straw woman ("idiot progressive") who allegedly "smokes pot every day" (because the caption says so) and "pot is bad for you" (because Dave says so), which he then uses as a Guilt by Association -- a fallacy leaning on another fallacy that's carrying a fallacy, with a fallacy attached to it. Not to be outdone by himself, he leads off the post with yet another fallacy (you want the government to make all your decisions for you).

Thanks for playing Dave. Nobody does it better.

Fallacy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In your case, you think it means "something I can't argue against, so I'll just pretend to be superior and talk down to people".

How's that workin' out for ya?

Actually pretty well, Answer-man.

I wouldn't know about the 'talking down' bit -- you mean like "you want the government to make all your decisions for you"? Or like "weak minded"? Or both?
Doesn't seem efficacious to me. How's it working out for you?

 

[Papageorgio]

You don't like science? Or did I just destroy your argument? That explains your reaction. Trans vaccenic acid is a natural trans fat that is found in beef, or the hamburger you just at at McDonald's without all of the extras. Or the 2% milk you bought at the grocery store. Seriously.

What the FDA is doing is overstepping its bounds. Fixing what isn't broke. Over the past decade, consumption of trans fats have decreased dramatically. If you ban the production of trans fats by the food industry, they will soon start using butter in it's place to make up for it. Butter is just as bad if not worse than trans fats. I see slippery slope written all over your argument.

If you can make such a statement, you clearly do not know what you're talking about regarding this topic. If you make such a wide open unsubstantiated charge like that without backing it up, and you think people will just accept it because you believe it, you're mistaken.

There ain't a damn thing wrong with butter -- other than what might be in the milk used to produce it.

I'm still on my lifelong quest to figure out why butter is anathema in the South. No answers on that front yet. Not sure if that's related to TK's butter hate but it's there.

I'm not from the south, I stay away from butter and many milk products, they are unhealthy for a diet.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll tell you what difference it makes. I won't miss trans fat at all because I avoid it as much as possible. But the fact that the government chooses to ban it, not because it is a poisonous or toxic substance or harmful in small amounts, but because they just want to ban it because somebody might eat too much of it and they can.

And where does that stop? Why not regulate salt? Sugar? Refined flour? And all the other stuff that is bad for us if we consume too much of it? Where do you draw the line on what the government will be allowed to do to dictate every aspect of your life?

Remember. Kathleen Sebelius is in charge of Health and Human Services with authority to ban whatever. How is her track record so far with that agency?

The FDA commissioner is Margaret Hamburg MD who really doesn't appear to be a bad choice. But Kathleen Sebelius is her boss. I would be much happier of Hamburg was head of Health and Human Services but alas, she simply didn't pull the political clout that Sebelius had.

The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is former Monsanto VP and head lobbyist Michael Taylor. Does that inspire a great deal of confidence folks?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can you prove that methods of growing more food faster = bad?