BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[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.

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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Damn right, and we mentioned nitrates, GMOs, sulfites, cottonseed and tobacco too. That's why I keep linking this.

Again, this preposterously naïve "big gummint" argument is like looking at the levee that has sprung seven leaks and complaining that part of the levee is still holding.

 

[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 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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

Foxy I love ya but you're a hopeless drama queen.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

There sure is. And once you recognize that you'll see how silly you're looking right now. Again, this classification applies to food producers -- not consumers. Try to distort that all you want with these empty cries of "dictating our diet" but truth will out.

And once again you don't want trans fats anyway so your "dictating our diet" BS is pure hypocrisy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

Foxy I love ya but you're a hopeless drama queen.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

There sure is. And once you recognize that you'll see how silly you're looking right now. Again, this classification applies to food producers -- not consumers. Try to distort that all you want with these empty cries of "dictating our diet" but truth will out.

And once again you don't want trans fats anyway so your "dictating our diet" BS is pure hypocrisy.

And once more the point went flying right over your head. I may be silly, but at least I know what the point is.

 

[Vox]

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.

Damn right, and we mentioned nitrates, GMOs, sulfites, cottonseed and tobacco too. That's why I keep linking this.

Again, this preposterously naïve "big gummint" argument is like looking at the levee that has sprung seven leaks and complaining that part of the levee is still holding.

well, you have to agree that big gubmint acting obviously corrupt and outward stupid is not helping in convincing the populace everything is done in their best interests.
remember our fight over the European idiocy to prosecute criminally the citizens if they exchange the seeds between themselves without going through lengthy and costly licensing first?( banning Monsanto is good, prosecuting the individuals for their private deeds is evil)
That is also an example of government idiocy - on even a higher level than a single country government.

 

[Pogo]

1937 - Elixir of Sulfanilamide, containing the poisonous solvent diethylene glycol, kills 107 persons, many of whom are children, dramatizing the need to establish drug safety before marketing and to enact the pending food and drug law.

1959 - U.S. cranberry crop recalled three weeks before Thanksgiving for FDA tests to check for aminotriazole, a weedkiller found to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Cleared berries were allowed a label stating that they had been tested and had passed FDA inspection, the only such endorsement ever allowed by FDA on a food product.

1962 - Thalidomide, a new sleeping pill, is found to have caused birth defects in thousands of babies born in western Europe. News reports on the role of Dr. Frances Kelsey, FDA medical officer, in keeping the drug off the U.S. market, arouse public support for stronger drug regulation.

(an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 children worldwide were born with birth defects as a direct result of Thalidomide; thanks to Dr. Kelsey at FDA, it was never legally sold here)

1979 - In the hours following the Three Mile Island nuclear emergency of March 28, 1979, FDA contracted with firms in Missouri, Michigan, and New Jersey to prepare and package enough doses of potassium iodide to protect those threatened with thyroid cancer if exposed to radiation. Nearly one quarter of a million bottles-enough for every household in the area-were delivered to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania within 72 hours.

1989 - FDA issues a nationwide recall of all over-the-counter dietary supplements containing 100 milligrams or more of L-Tryptophan, due to a clear link between the consumption of L-tryptophan tablets and its association with a U.S. outbreak of Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), characterized by fatigue, shortness of breath, and other symptoms. By 1990 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirm over 1,500 cases of EMS, including 38 deaths, and FDA prohibits the importation of l-tryptophan.

1990 - Safe Medical Devices Act is passed, requiring nursing homes, hospitals, and other facilities that use medical devices to report to FDA incidents that suggest that a medical device probably caused or contributed to the death, serious illness, or serious injury of a patient. Manufacturers are required to conduct post-market surveillance on permanently implanted devices whose failure might cause serious harm or death, and to establish methods for tracing and locating patients depending on such devices. The act authorizes FDA to order device product recalls and other actions.


2000 - The U. S. Supreme Court, upholding an earlier decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al., ruled 5-4 that FDA does not have authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Within weeks of this ruling, FDA revokes its final rule, issued in 1996, that restricted the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents, and that determined that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are combination products consisting of a drug (nicotine) and device components intended to deliver nicotine to the body.

2004 - Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act requires the labeling of any food that contains a protein derived from any one of the following foods that, as a group, account for the vast majority of food allergies: peanuts, soybeans, cow's milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat. (mostly from FDA site)

Some cases there where the system worked ... Now let's look at the negative -- the mean old gubbamint leaving a consumer choice in lieu of a ban:

1997 - "The Food and Drug Administration, acting on new evidence about significant side-effects associated with fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, has asked the manufacturers to voluntarily withdraw both treatments for obesity from the market.

This is the diet control substance commonly known as "fen-phen". It was targeted because of its adverse coronary and pulmonary effects. Tens of thousands of people were injured; one of them is my friend (Foxy knows) afflicted with pulmonary hypertension (PH), the same disease Sunshine suffers from. There is no cure for it. It's with you "for the duration". Nice, huh?

Had the FDA been more proactive and had a Frances Kelsey to put a skeptical eye on fen-phen, instead of asking for voluntary action after the fact, those tens of thousands might have been spared. But that's what you get when regulation doesn't go far enough.

 

[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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

 

[Pogo]

Thalidomide Revisited - featuring an interview/story with/about Frances Kelsey (at age 95, she's now 99) Good story.

Ironically this public servant who kept Thalidomide off pharmacy shelves here was a Canadian, while Canada didn't stop the drug and suffered the effects. IOW the FDA succeeded where Canada and Europe failed.

]

Kelsey receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, the highest civilian honor in the United States (1962)​

"Had Thalidomide been approved in the U.S., its use would have spread even further across the world because the U.S. is the biggest market -- the FDA today is considered the gold standard for approval. It wasn't back in 1961, but even so I think the imprimatur of U.S. approval would have meant wider use for Thalidomide." -- Fran Hawthorne, author of Inside the FDA- The Business and Politics Behind the Drugs We Take and the Food We Eat (quoted from program linked above)


But let's not forget, the FDA is evil.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because costs the manufactuer little or nothing, and it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

 

[Pogo]

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

And what "choice" is that? The right to ingest anti-freeze? The right to have Thalidomide babies? The right to eat carcinogens? Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely nobody desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??

Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word choice here is completely disingenuous.

 

[Vox]

It is close enough to a ban to qualify as one. The free market was already dealing with trans fat and manufacturers have proudly emblazoned across their products: ZERO TRANS FAT. There isn't a single one of us who hasn't been educated that trans fat is an undesirable substance in our food. You have to really hunt anymore to find products that contain it.

There is a big difference between requiring our food to be safe from contaminants that we wouldn't know were there and in dictating to us what our diet must be.

And we who love liberty should always be wary of giving over our freedoms to a government that presumes to decide for us for our own good.

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

a choice taking from WHOM?
you can eat as much trans fats as you wish - in your house.

the decision has labeled the transfats as the harmful category of ingredients - not banned it.
sure, it has the implications for the food INDUSTRY. It makes them LIABLE if they opt to put it in the ingredients to the food they sell.

That is not taking away your choice at all. It is labeling the harmful product as such and letting the industry which invented it for their profit ( which is OK as long as it is safe) that now they can use the harmful ingredient and be open to the numerous lawsuits.
What the industry will chose to do - is their option.
They can still use the ingredient.
It is simply marked as harmful.

I can still use droperidol ( a great drug, BTW) which was blackboxed in a typical corrupt manner for the benefit of then new zofran but I will be taking my own risk in using it - it makes me more liable for the lawsuits.
It is cheaper and better than the alternatives. And it is as safe as they are. The decision by FDA was corrupt and stupid one.
It still did not take my choice away - it made my choice more risky.
Same is here. The choice is there. It is just much more risky.

 

[Pogo]

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...

Maybe that's why your cakes aren't working...

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Force us to go along"?
Are you a food company, Dave?

No?

Then it doesn't affect you.

Duh.

 

[Foxfyre]

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

And what "choice" is that? The right to ingest anti-freeze? The right to have Thalidomide babies? The right to eat carcinogens? Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely nobody desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??

Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word choice here is completely disingenuous.

Now you're not being just silly. You are being deliberately obtuse and trying to change the subject along with dishonest inferences about what I am saying. And I won't try again to explain a concept that you are apparently incapable of understanding. But I love you anyway, Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

And what "choice" is that? The right to ingest anti-freeze? The right to have Thalidomide babies? The right to eat carcinogens? Again, the question none of you can answer about this substance absolutely nobody desires, is -- what the hell would you be missing by not getting a chemical you've already said you don't want??

Again, you've already stated you don't want these chemicals (nobody else does either) so the word choice here is completely disingenuous.

Now you're not being just silly. You are being deliberately obtuse and trying to change the subject along with dishonest inferences about what I am saying. And I won't try again to explain a concept that you are apparently incapable of understanding. But I love you anyway, Pogo.

Aw Foxy, you concession speeches are always so subtle...

All I did was demonstrate why your choice of "choice" doesn't work, and this is the thanks I get. Hmph. But it was your word choice...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ[/ame]

Love ya Mom O'Fox.

 

[Pogo]

and that is OK. They have the authority to do exactly that.

I really can not understand why are you outraged at this particular FDA decision and not outraged at 100 others?
they issue decisions on allowing or banning something every day.

Nobody is dictating your private diet. Putting the harmful ingredients invented by food industry in the category which labels them as such has absolutely nothing to do with dictating your particular diet - it is exactly keeping your food from harmful contaminants - the task the FDA is supposed to do.
And this time it finally did do it's job.

I have not said that I was not outraged by 100 others. But this thread is about the trans fat ban and I usually try to do my best to stay on topic.

And I also applauded the honest labeling of content of food products we buy. That is a GOOD thing because it gives us the opportunity to more conveniently be informed so that we can make better choices. There is a huge difference between that and taking the choice away from us altogether.

a choice taking from WHOM?
you can eat as much trans fats as you wish - in your house.

the decision has labeled the transfats as the harmful category of ingredients - not banned it.

Actually it doesn't even go that far --- it would simply remove trans fats from the list of stuff that are not harmful - which would then require it to pass safety standards they don't now need to pass. Which, again, is the FDA's job -- a job it barely does as it is. And far from being "breaking news", this was an announcement of a 60-day comment period on the proposal --- again following long-established procedures. Nothing at all new.

I guess it demonstrates the contortions some wags will put themselves through taking a dishonestly-framed OP at face value rather than actually looking into it.

 

[skye]

This trans -fat ...harmful or not... I am will never stop eating. Never.

Hot chips.

 

[Connery]

This trans -fat ...harmful or not... I am will never stop eating. Never.



Hot chips.

With deep fried fish on the beach!!!


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Papageorgio]

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; you want them to ban tobacco, I'm sure you can write to them at the same address they have up for this. But all you're doing is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. Come back when you can think of a rational argument on the topic, K?

I don't want them to ban tobacco, I don't think they need to ban trans fats or GMO's, or milk, nitrates, fluoride, aluminum and so on.


I educate myself on food and what is healthy or not. Then I follow it, once in awhile I'll eat something I shouldn't. But that is my choice, I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you, who needs government make decisions for you.