BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[Noomi]

Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.

True story.

I hate butter. I think it tastes like cheese, which I hate. Maybe its because I am so used to margarine, who knows...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?

No, but they're smarter than rw's.

 

[Sunshine]

Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?

No, but they're smarter than rw's.

I am helpless to disagree with that statement. Libs ARE smarter than conservatives. They have figured out how to simply refuse to do anything other than be a perpetual leisure with the conservatives working and paying taxes in megabucks to support them. It is like my house cat. I KNOW my cat is smarter than me. Evidence of that is who feeds whom.

 

[paulitician]

Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

You sure do lead a rich fantasy life.

You're too kind, but nah. Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848. I don't even know how to approach that level.

Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.

And again, that is the real issue isn't it? It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet. But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.

But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good. It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong. Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.

And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives. We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be. But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.

 

[daveman]

You're too kind, but nah. Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848. I don't even know how to approach that level.

Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.

And again, that is the real issue isn't it? It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet. But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.

But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good. It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong. Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.

And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives. We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be. But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.

Indeed. And deep down, statists know they can't get people to voluntarily agree with their agenda. That's why they have to indoctrinate school children with it -- they're too young to question what they're told. For the rest of us, they have to alter the government to force us to go along.

 

[Pogo]

Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.

Uh--- it IS their business. That's what FDA does. It's the entire point of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.

DUH!

They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?

Nobody said they do it well, dumbass. I've been saying throughout the thread that they don't do enough. Besides which, SCOTUS ruled they don't have the authority.

Go learn to read. All you have here is a biased sample fallacy; throw the baby out with the bath water. Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?

 

[Pogo]

Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!

No, the FDA and Captain Obvious said so. I don't know how you missed this but we've known this is bad stuff like forever.

But by all means, while your fascist nose is squarely up the corporate anus, go ahead and take on the question that nobody else has been able to answer: what exactly would you be deprived of?









Can't answer that, can ya?

 

[Pogo]

You're too kind, but nah. Rich fantasy would be seeing sudden comic book conspiracy in the FDA because it's doing the same job it and its ancestors been doing since 1848. I don't even know how to approach that level.

Yes, we've already established that you see nothing wrong with the government running your life.

And again, that is the real issue isn't it? It isn't really the trans fat issue that is at the heart of this as not a single one of us care whether we can have trans fat or not since not one of us would intentionally CHOOSE trans fat in our diet. But as long as there is labeling of food products--and that is a good thing--we can easily avoid everything other than that occurring naturally in our food.

Until they start calling it something else. Like they do with sugars...

And again, what the hell is the point of defending our right to something none of us wants?

"Dammit, I want more rat feces in my cereal! It's my right!"

You don't see how freaking silly that makes you sound?

But the statists/leftists/progressives/liberals love government and look to it as their nanny, protector, benefactor, and all that is good. It must be totally liberal, of course--government is EVIL if conservatives control Congress or the White House--but as long as we have a Marxist progressive at the helm, government can do no wrong. Thus, our leftist friends here passionately defend banning trans fat (or anything else the government wants to do) regarding our food.

And we who value liberty and our unalienable right to live our lives as we choose, not as somebody else chooses for us, will continue to push back against more and more authoritarian and intrusive government into our lives. We do not want a government so powerful it can dictate to us what our diet must be. But each little invasion into unnecessary things, like trans fat, moves us closer to a totalitarian government with power to control every aspect of our lives.

Please, spare us the "Glory Be to Ayn Rand" prayer. This is a very simple matter of a federal agency simply doing its job, looking out for food safety as it's been doing since you and I were kids, since our parents were kids, since their parents were kids. A hundred and sixty-five years, and suddenly in 2013 it's this dark comic book plot by Lex Luthor to take over the world one fat molecule at a time by taking corporate protection off a man-made substance that all of us already agree we don't want in our food.

Are you people collectively insane?

Were you jumping up and down on Eisenhower when he signed the Food Additives Amendment of 1958? Because that's all this is -- a proposal to take trans fats off the GRAS list that that legislation created. Want to dispense with that? Want the medications you take to be made in some guy's bathtub with no oversight? Want salmonella in your poultry? Carcinogens in your cosmetics? Want your hospital blood transfusion brought in in a recycled beer bottle?

And back to those ingredient labels... who do you think made that ingredient label happen in the first place?? Hypocrisy, thy name is Randbot Drama Queen.

And as we've said throughout, it's the FDA barely doing its job, the cases of tobacco and GMOs and nitrates and cottonseed and sulfites and aspartame all having been brought up. And your response is to cry the blues that it should do even LESS.

Oh yeah, brilliant plan there.

 

[Pogo]

Here's an index to the FDA's GRAS list. Can somebody please direct me to the threads where the idea of public commentary on these substances was also denounced by the same posters here. Just trying to get them a way out of looking like sorry hypocrites.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.

 

[NoNukes]

dont use the federal government to decide people are not smart enough to take care of themselves.

They're not, that's why all these fat ass right wingers are driving insurance rates through the roof. If they choose not to have medical insurance and will not seek treatment for their conditions, so be it. But there is no reason why everyone has to pay for these dumbasses poor decisions.

The decision might have to do with protecting children who are fed this poison by their parents. Of course, the right is against protecting children.

 

[NoNukes]

I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.

Do you have a right to poison your children?

 

[Vox]

Butter is 100 percent better for you than margarine.

True story.

I hate butter. I think it tastes like cheese, which I hate. Maybe its because I am so used to margarine, who knows...

you are used. you don't have to use butter if you don't like it. simply avoid margarine. it is bad for you.

it is better to use the sour cream instead. if you want to use it a a spread.

 

[Vox]

Why is the title 'libs want.' Do they run the FDA?

No, but they're smarter than rw's.

doesn't look like by reading this thread

 

[Vox]

I have a fundamental right to consume all the trans fats I want, whenever and wherever I want, and that's directly consistent to abortion.

Do you have a right to poison your children?

yes, he does.

 

[Pogo]

And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day.

I'm sorry, I just cannot live in the pages of a Doctor Doom comic book. Then again I never cared for soap operas.

So you've been against the government's QC of food products since it started in 1848 then?

So you take a Sharpie to the store and blot out the ingredient labels the FDA requires? Because that's gubbamint communist jackboot brownshirt Nazi fascist dictatorship. You can't be caught reading them... and surely you've been doing that for the entire 48 years food has been labeled -- right?

Let's have a look-see just how far back you Neanderthals want to take us...

A 1311 London ordinance required of all wine that each turn be marked in front, so that the buyer may readily see the value of the wine. One of the most commonly adulterated food items in England was butter. A 1649 statute regulating the adulteration of butter required every butter packer to place his initials of mark on the container in order to discover and punish any person who violated the regulation. A similar butter statute enacted by Parliament in 1662 sought to trace violators by requiring every butter packer to brand his first initial and full surname on each container of butter he sold.

... In colonial America, liability marks were used as by municipalities as a means to impose weight and price controls on loaves of bread. In 1646, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony (created) the first recorded Assize of Bread in colonial America. Almost an exact copy of the British Assize of Bread, it too required that every Baker shall have a distinct mark for his Bread. When Virginia passed a law in 1745 regulating the size of flour barrels, it provided that inspector of barrels was supposed to stamp each barrel as first, or second fitness before it could exported. Later such labeling regulations were extended to barrels of pork...

In 1785, Massachusetts may have been the first legislative body in the world to enact a broad food adulteration statute applicable to all food commodities. In the last quarter of the 18th century, many states enacted similarly broad statutes. For example, in 1786, Virginia enacted a broad statute. However, these statutes lacked many affirmative labeling requirements, and not until the twentieth century did affirmative labeling requirements become common place.

(Once) food production is dominated by mass production and distribution, the balance of power shifts against the consumer. When the consumer no longer has a personal relationship with the producer or at least the peddler of the food products, then the consumer can no longer rely on trust as a guide to making good purchases. When a product is canned, bottled, or simply pre-packaged, the consumer has no way of monitoring its quality at purchase. The only way a consumer might ever know of a product's poor quality is if they become ill from using it. Worse yet, the manufacturer can engage in sophisticated adulteration techniques that go completely undetected by the consumer, and can in fact only be detected by an inspector. Producers figured out ways to subtly alter the chemical composition of pre-packaged foods so that quality of production without the consumer perceiving any drop in the quality of the product.

... But the real impetus for public awareness of adulteration as a public health dilemma came from a report issued in 1850... (which) documented a marked decline in the average life expectancy of citizens of major American urban centers, and indicted food adulteration as a major public health problem. As a result of these concerns, many U.S. states adopted anti-adulteration statues in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Unfortunately state regulations were woefully inadequate because states lacked enforcement resources and could not regulate food (that) was transported across state lines. <<

You can continue reading about the need for action on a national basis, advocated by the food and drug makers themselves including Squibb, Heinz and Pabst (pp 17-18, Food Labeling Regulation: A Historical and Comparative Survey)

1850 of course was the era when food production was becoming industrialized/mass produced, in contrast to the crops a common farmer would grow for himself.


So you want to take us back to 1311 then? Cool, let's go. I understand they had some awesome diseases. It's my right to experience them.

 

[Vox]

And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.

the problem is that we have given the government license to do exactly that a long time ago - when FDA was created. nothing wrong with that, BTW, however FDA often displays a corrupt and biased decision.

banning transfats from being used by the food industries has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberties.
You can still consume them on your own, but they taste bad.

Actually this is not even a ban per se, it is an equivalent to what FDA does when it blackboxes the drug. It is still available and you can use it.
Just be prepared that your choice might be challenged by the greedy lawyers.

 

[Vox]

Foxfyre, you raise the point. To let a bunch of government dumb shits decide what is best for the country is a recipe into hell. They need to mind their own business and leave Americans alone.

Uh--- it IS their business. That's what FDA does. It's the entire point of having an entity that ensures safety of food, drugs and cosmetics.

DUH!

They ensure nothing. Why do they allow tobacco?

they also allow high fructose corn syrup - which only proves that government entities are very prone to corruption and some lobbies are more potent than the others.

 

[daveman]

And again Pogo demonstrates that he completely missed the point made; i.e. that when we give the government license or shrug off inappropriate action in small, seemingly inconsequential things, government will take that as license to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. And the noose around our liberties is made a little larger and tightened a little more each time until one day we wake up and we have none left other than what the government allows on any given day and can just as easily take away with a quick executive order.