BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[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?

Aw, i remember when i had my first beer. You sound like an adolescent desperately trying to fit in speaking with the adults. You got the bluster thing down, but behind all the bluster is an empty suit. You really don't know what you're talking about. But hey, i'll chalk it up to bold youth. Go ahead and take a break from the Board and come back when you understand what the term 'Fascist' means. I think you'll find that it actually describes you to a tee. Now off ya go youngster.

STILL no answer.
Noted.

"youngster"

Lemme give you a hint there, hintless. The first time I boarded a commercial airline flight, the President of the United States was Harry Truman.
We knew a bit about fascism then.

 

[Pogo]

I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without safty breakers in them!

Damn straight brother. We have an inalieanable right to dysentery, and cancer, and deformed babies, and planes flying into each other. Down with control towers! Get the citizen jackhammers out to destroy the highways! Damn these gubbamint revenooers!

 

[Pogo]

Oh well, another day, another ban. Such is life in a Nanny/Police State. I'm out. Got some Football to enjoy. We better enjoy it while we still can i guess. Ya never know when the Dictator and his fat wife will decide to ban tackling. Have a good day all. See ya.

By all means, enjoy your football -- broadcast on TV stations regulated by the FCC

 

[DGS49]

For anyone who cares to do some actual research on the subject, the connection between dietary cholesterol and coronary artery disease is almost completely debunked. It is the medical equivalent of an Old Wives Tale, that simply will not go away.

For anyone familiar with the Adkins diet, he had been promoting a diet LOADED with "bad" cholesterol for decades, and in case after case after case, his patients serum cholesterol was reduced with the diet. It gave the cardiology profession fits, until they finally had to recognize the research and quit blowing smoke about dietary cholesterol.

But a large plurality in that profession continue with their nonsense precautions, because they don't want to tell their patients that there really isn't much you can do if you have the genetic predisposition to load up your arteries.

For your reading enjoyment:

Dietary cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients: a review of the Harvard Egg Study and other data.
[Article in English, French]
Jones PJ.
SourceNutrition and Functional Foods, Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. [email protected]

Abstract
For many years, both the medical community and the general public have incorrectly associated eggs with high serum cholesterol and being deleterious to health, even though cholesterol is an essential component of cells and organisms. It is now acknowledged that the original studies purporting to show a linear relation between cholesterol intake and coronary heart disease (CHD) may have contained fundamental study design flaws, including conflated cholesterol and saturated fat consumption rates and inaccurately assessed actual dietary intake of fats by study subjects. Newer and more accurate trials, such as that conducted by Frank B. Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health (1999), have shown that consumption of up to seven eggs per week is harmonious with a healthful diet, except in male patients with diabetes for whom an association in higher egg intake and CHD was shown. The degree to which serum cholesterol is increased by dietary cholesterol depends upon whether the individual's cholesterol synthesis is stimulated or down-regulated by such increased intake, and the extent to which each of these phenomena occurs varies from person to person. Several recent studies have shed additional light on the specific interplay between dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular health risk. It is evident that the dynamics of cholesterol homeostasis, and of development of CHD, are extremely complex and multifactorial. In summary, the earlier purported adverse relationship between dietary cholesterol and heart disease risk was likely largely over-exaggerated.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a ‘redeeming’ quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.

They already have. That's the whole point. As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.

You "want to eat it"? Why? This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly? Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all. What for?

Why is entirely irrelevant. YOU do not get to make the determination of whether or not ones reasons for ingesting an item is good enough. That is for the individual to decide. There is no reason that the FDA should be coming in and demanding that you stop ingesting a particular product because they don’t feel that it is healthy enough for you to ingest.

If we were talking about something that is truly fatal then you might have a point. Perhaps cyanide should not be part of your basic diet (Though apparently that is actually all right as it is produced by cigarettes) but you are basically demanding that a substance that potentially will have ZERO health effects unless abused and even then takes YEARS for any real impacts needs to be controlled by big daddy government. At what point is that going to stop? There are a LOT of things that are dangerous in some respect or another, particularly if abused. Your arguments would fit right in with Demolition Man and Taco Bell.

X is bad for you ergo X is illegal…

That is how freedom works pogo – you don’t limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe. That is asinine. You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe. Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest. Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.

Cool your jets. That's not what I said.
What the FDA proposes to do is to remove them from its own GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. When you're on that list (as trans fats are now) you don't have to prove you're safe to go into food. When you're off it, you do. So what would happen is that present or future trans fats would be required to show that they're not. And yes, ANY artificial chemical proposed to go into the public food supply has to be proven safe. That goes without saying. You don't just pick up random objects off the street and eat them, do you?

Whether they're more or less safe than other unrelated things is entirely irrelevant. Those other things get evaluated on their own. This is not a comparison.

The health effects of other items is VERY relevant. You are making the claim that trans fats need to be regulated when I think it is demonstrably clear they are far safer than many other products that are perfectly legal to ingest. That is a very relevant point. Further, I want to know what ‘proof’ they are searching for. Trans fats have already been tested. I fail to understand what you want the food industry to ‘prove’ when the health information on them are largely known - they provide no benefits and increase your risk of heart attack. Same thing as a thousand other things that we regularly partake in.

That, to me, is simply not sufficient to justify further regulation on trans fats. As I already pointed out, people are DOING THIS ON THEIR OWN ANYWAY! The idea that the FDA needs to get involved after the market takes care of this on its own is completely nuts to me. If they wanted to get involved – the time would have been a long time ago. Now the work has been done for them and butting in is nothing more than a regulatory agency that has WAY too much time and needs to find something else to make the boogey man.

Not in terms of heart disease it isn't. Have you even read the research and conclusions? I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all.

I implied no such thing. I stated that the ‘positive’ is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that I may want to ingest it and the government has no right to tell me no.

Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go. You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up. That is your right. However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly. I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest. I don’t care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU – as long as the end decision is MINE. Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.

Restaurants?

I have no problem with required labeling on menus. That would be proper regulation as that is actually geared to allowing people the freedom of choice - which is actually removed just as effectively by companies not telling you what they are selling as the government refusing you access to it. BOTH are completely and utterly wrong. One thing keeps freedom AND protects the customer – required and clear communication to the customer of what they are purchasing (labeling). The other ‘solutions’ are nothing more than government overreach.

I think you are thinking of the wrong post… that one has nothing about laden products.

Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant. The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade. That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever. They are taking care of it – the government is NOT needed here.

I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled. The market does not do this by itself. I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers. Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example. Some entity MUST oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.

You tried to make that point but you did so incorrectly as you have done again. You are looking at the market as companies. That is NOT the market but rather one side of the market. The market is populated by both companies AND consumers. The labeling is proper governmental action as it protects the consumer (one of the governments jobs IMHO) form companies exploiting them unknowingly. Then, after the government required consent, the MARKET (through consumers changing demands) took care of the problem. This is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work. Your freedom is intact and you are also protected by having the proper information available to you in order to make the choices that you want. Choices that also include the ‘bad’ ones should you desire.

I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing. And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.

There is zero doubt that the government has WAY more power in this instance. You see, I decide what corporations I utilize (or none should I so desire). I have but one single vote for my government and that amounts to very little influence on my own. That is why the government and its influence should always be kept at its smallest. The one power that it should be exerting over companies is that I should be fully informed to what they are providing me when I choose to do business with them. That allows me the fullest form of freedom.

No, they didn't. Not sure where this is coming from-- your link doesn't even mention a "director". I am telling you OP of this thread is lying though. Here's the actual FDA press release. And I quote:
[snip]

That is because you are focusing on the single, carefully written press release. The commissioner (sorry I used the term director) and the deputy commissioner have made statements that reflect the actual goal – elimination of artificial trans fats entirely. That is what they are going for and the first step is to start regulation. They even mentioned wanting to do so over a period of time to give the companies less of a jolt. Simply put, the immediate action is a START. One that is required to get the power to essentially ban the substance.

Interestingly enough, every single major article on this that I could find all said the same thing. That this move alone would virtually ban trans fats. Political spectrum and slant on the article was irrelevant. Everything from Huff Po and NYT to the Blaze is saying the same exact thing – the FDA is moving to ban trans fats. If you think that is not true then I suggest that you reexamine the situation here – when EVERYONE is of the opposite opinion it is likely because your premise is flawed.

Trans fats: FDA moves toward banning - POLITICO.com

“We know if we finalize our determination it may take some time to eliminate [partially hydrogenated oils],” Michael Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said during the conference call. “And we know that removing PHO from products like frosting is more challenging.”

I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family. That is not what the government is there for. Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of ‘my own good.’ That should be appalling to anyone in this nation. WE are taking care of the problem. WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).

The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced. The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before. And other institutional food screening goes back at least seven hundred years (see post 497). If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were. I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.

Again, this is the FDA's job -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death. Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics. It's exactly what they're there for.

False. The last time that this move was done (resulting in a ban then as well) was 1969. In the last 40 years, the FDA has not done this once.

Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of? Heart disease?

Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.

Free will. Choice. That is the heart of freedom. You seem to think that the end result is all that matters. Because I might increase the risk of heart disease then I am not deprived of anything from removing trans fats. That is completely backwards. I am deprived of the right to eat a food that I might enjoy. I am deprived of the ability to do as I please. Such a right should not be hindered unless there is clear and present dangers presented to others when I do partake in whatever I choose to. Again, I still have the right to pollute my body with various other chemicals and unhealthy foods that are all similar with trans fats. The core difference is that those others have not been targeted by some random government agency yet.

That is not proper government.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Corn syrup is next

 

[Pogo]

I hope it didn't take two weeks to do that...

What you seem to be missing here may take most of your arguments down and that is this, and we're not noting this for the first time:
What the FDA proposes to do is not to ban trans fats but to take them off the GRAS list. And what that means is they would no longer get a free pass, but would be required to prove themselves safe, like any other new substance. If they can do that, they're in. When we say it would "effectively" ban trans fats, that means they could not pass the long-overdue scrutiny they would have to pass. Which in turn means they are not safe. So what you're arguing for is for this chemical to get a nod and a wink, and the public be damned.

And it has nothing to do with what you or I are allowed to eat. The FDA doesn't have that kind of power.

As we go through I'll just refer to this top section as "GRAS".

=================​

That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a &#8216;redeeming&#8217; quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.

They already have. That's the whole point. As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.

You "want to eat it"? Why? This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly? Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all. What for?

Why is entirely irrelevant. YOU do not get to make the determination of whether or not ones reasons for ingesting an item is good enough. That is for the individual to decide. There is no reason that the FDA should be coming in and demanding that you stop ingesting a particular product because they don&#8217;t feel that it is healthy enough for you to ingest.

It's relevant because it's the basis of your point. I want to know how you got there. I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.

As for the FDA in the second part -- that IS exactly their job. As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).

If we were talking about something that is truly fatal then you might have a point.

We are.

Perhaps cyanide should not be part of your basic diet (Though apparently that is actually all right as it is produced by cigarettes) but you are basically demanding that a substance that potentially will have ZERO health effects unless abused and even then takes YEARS for any real impacts needs to be controlled by big daddy government. At what point is that going to stop? There are a LOT of things that are dangerous in some respect or another, particularly if abused. Your arguments would fit right in with Demolition Man and Taco Bell.

Now you're injecting degrees where none existed. Nobody said "zero". Or any other number. We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities. It's not even a trade-off. There is nothing good in it.

Considering which, again, why do you want to eat it? I haven't seen an answer on that yet.

Sorry, I don't know what "Demolition Man" is. A new burger?

RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.

X is bad for you ergo X is illegal&#8230;

The health effects of other items is VERY relevant. You are making the claim that trans fats need to be regulated when I think it is demonstrably clear they are far safer than many other products that are perfectly legal to ingest. That is a very relevant point. Further, I want to know what &#8216;proof&#8217; they are searching for. Trans fats have already been tested. I fail to understand what you want the food industry to &#8216;prove&#8217; when the health information on them are largely known - they provide no benefits and increase your risk of heart attack. Same thing as a thousand other things that we regularly partake in.

Again, you're comparing irrelevancies. This action has nothing to do with whatever those other substances are. They get judged on their own merits. And whether substance X, Y or Z is approved or not has nothing to do with trans fats.

As far as what the industry is to prove -- see GRAS above.

That, to me, is simply not sufficient to justify further regulation on trans fats. As I already pointed out, people are DOING THIS ON THEIR OWN ANYWAY! The idea that the FDA needs to get involved after the market takes care of this on its own is completely nuts to me. If they wanted to get involved &#8211; the time would have been a long time ago. Now the work has been done for them and butting in is nothing more than a regulatory agency that has WAY too much time and needs to find something else to make the boogey man.

We're starting to rehash the same arguments again, and they'll get the same answers again: Number One, People are doing this "on their own" only because the FDA required the labels to list them (and still does so inadequately). So like it or not, that "on their own" action was spurred by this government agency doing its job. Number Two, you are correct, they are behind the times in doing this -- which makes your resistance all the more bizarre. As we both note, it's overdue.

Not in terms of heart disease it isn't. Have you even read the research and conclusions? I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all.

I implied no such thing. I stated that the &#8216;positive&#8217; is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that I may want to ingest it and the government has no right to tell me no.

The government doesn't tell you no. The government doesn't tell you anything. Unless you're a food producer (producer, not consumer), in which case the government will regulate what kind of safety standards you must follow. As governments have done for centuries. See also GRAS above.

Restaurants?

I have no problem with required labeling on menus. That would be proper regulation as that is actually geared to allowing people the freedom of choice - which is actually removed just as effectively by companies not telling you what they are selling as the government refusing you access to it. BOTH are completely and utterly wrong. One thing keeps freedom AND protects the customer &#8211; required and clear communication to the customer of what they are purchasing (labeling). The other &#8216;solutions&#8217; are nothing more than government overreach.

Should we have sold Thalidomide then? Was it "overreach" to deny thousands of Americans the right to be born deformed?

And as far as those labels, I'll just reiterate that the labeling requirements are already inadequate (I linked that earlier), allowing some trans fats to still go through unlabeled. And they're nonexistent in restaurants.

I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled. The market does not do this by itself. I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers. Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example. Some entity MUST oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.

You tried to make that point but you did so incorrectly as you have done again. You are looking at the market as companies. That is NOT the market but rather one side of the market. The market is populated by both companies AND consumers.

Sorry, that's absurd. The merchant part is the active part. The consumer is completely passive here. We have no power -- they have it all. Which is why we need an advocate to control what corporations do -- corporations which, lest we forget, exist at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around (this perverse idea of making gods out of our own slaves really needs a revisit, but I digress). Here comes your concession (bold) to what the FDA is there for...

The labeling is proper governmental action as it protects the consumer (one of the governments jobs IMHO) form companies exploiting them unknowingly. Then, after the government required consent, the MARKET (through consumers changing demands) took care of the problem. This is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work. Your freedom is intact and you are also protected by having the proper information available to you in order to make the choices that you want. Choices that also include the &#8216;bad&#8217; ones should you desire.

I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing. And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.

There is zero doubt that the government has WAY more power in this instance.

Oh I think there's more than zero. WAY more than zero. Read this. I linked it before but you weren't here yet. Explain to me how that got on the market if the government has more power than Monsanto. I feel like I just passed into Dada Surrealland typing those six words; it's like typing the words "his vagina"; doesn't compute.

Foxfyre has also noted, with good reason, the appointment of a former Monsanto lawyer to the FDA whose name appears in the memo in question. And we've noted the FDA inaction on things like nitrates and cottonseed and especially GMOs. Government, more power than industry??? Pleeeeeze.

You see, I decide what corporations I utilize (or none should I so desire). I have but one single vote for my government and that amounts to very little influence on my own. That is why the government and its influence should always be kept at its smallest. The one power that it should be exerting over companies is that I should be fully informed to what they are providing me when I choose to do business with them. That allows me the fullest form of freedom.

That's a nice fantasy. If only the history and the lobbyism and the revolving door of DC didn't make it a farce. You and I have no choice here. That's an illusion.

That is because you are focusing on the single, carefully written press release. The commissioner (sorry I used the term director) and the deputy commissioner have made statements that reflect the actual goal &#8211; elimination of artificial trans fats entirely. That is what they are going for and the first step is to start regulation. They even mentioned wanting to do so over a period of time to give the companies less of a jolt. Simply put, the immediate action is a START. One that is required to get the power to essentially ban the substance.

Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top. And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line". Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass. Again.

Interestingly enough, every single major article on this that I could find all said the same thing. That this move alone would virtually ban trans fats. Political spectrum and slant on the article was irrelevant. Everything from Huff Po and NYT to the Blaze is saying the same exact thing &#8211; the FDA is moving to ban trans fats. If you think that is not true then I suggest that you reexamine the situation here &#8211; when EVERYONE is of the opposite opinion it is likely because your premise is flawed.


Trans fats: FDA moves toward banning - POLITICO.com

We don't disagree on the effective outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing. But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for their right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe. Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition. And you want to give them a pass.

Why would you do that?

See also again GRAS section at top.

The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced. The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before. And other institutional food screening goes back at least seven hundred years (see post 497). If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were. I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.

Again, this is the FDA's job -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death. Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics. It's exactly what they're there for.

False. The last time that this move was done (resulting in a ban then as well) was 1969. In the last 40 years, the FDA has not done this once.

Uh, that doesn't make it false. I just noted this has been going on for centuries, you cited something (you don't say what) in 1969. Those are in no way mutually exclusive.

Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of? Heart disease?

Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.

Free will. Choice. That is the heart of freedom. You seem to think that the end result is all that matters. Because I might increase the risk of heart disease then I am not deprived of anything from removing trans fats. That is completely backwards. I am deprived of the right to eat a food that I might enjoy.

It is impossible to "enjoy". It has no taste. It has no benefit. It has no nothing. You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application. We don't live in such a world. And further, there's no regulation on "you". It's a regulation on the food company. You can eat whatever you want. As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.

I am deprived of the ability to do as I please. Such a right should not be hindered unless there is clear and present dangers presented to others when I do partake in whatever I choose to. Again, I still have the right to pollute my body with various other chemicals and unhealthy foods that are all similar with trans fats. The core difference is that those others have not been targeted by some random government agency yet.

That is not proper government.

See above; you can eat whatever you want. But when you go on the market to sell to the masses, well there are certain standards you gotta follow. Again, it's been that way since the FDA was created, and for centuries before. This is nothing new.

 

[Dude111]

Once again I have to ask WHY? Why does the government feel it needs to ban something?

Because they think they can push ppl around and treat them like crap........ Its part of the NWO!!

 

[FA_Q2]

It's relevant because it's the basis of your point. I want to know how you got there. I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.

As for the FDA in the second part -- that IS exactly their job. As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).

No it is not. You are still missing the entire concept that I am talking about. You want to keep focusing on the why even though I gave you many already that you simply do not want to acknowledge. The fact remains that all of that is completely irrelevant. It does not matter why one want to do the things that they want to do. No one is the arbiter of your motivations. If you cannot get past that simple fact then I fear that you and I are of so different minds that we are varelse to each other. I see your thought process as tyrannical because you seem to require that I justify myself to papa government BEFORE taking any action whereas I believe that freedom entails the government needing to justify itself before limiting my actions.

The two concepts are miles apart.

Now you're injecting degrees where none existed. Nobody said "zero". Or any other number. We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities. It's not even a trade-off. There is nothing good in it.

Considering which, again, why do you want to eat it? I haven't seen an answer on that yet.

Again, irrelevant. I am really tired of going over this. I DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY MYSELF. Period. That is simple reality in anything that resembles freedom. I&#8217;ll give you a reason though: I want to eat it because it makes me think of fairies which reminds me of the forest that brings me to thinking about grass and the thought of grass makes me happy. Now, who are you or the FDA to decide that is not good enough? Who are you to decide that my irrational thoughts need to be controlled because you don&#8217;t think it is &#8216;redeeming&#8217; enough? The reason (and I gave you some in the last post not to mention that the FDA even gave a few in their own statements) that I, my neighbor or anyone else gives is utterly irrelevant.

That is what tyranny is &#8211; <insert agency here> deciding what I am allowed to do because they have unilaterally decided what is best for me WITHOUT my consent.

Sorry, I don't know what "Demolition Man" is. A new burger?

It is a corny movie reference. This section is essentially the end of this line:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiDoOgRTpk]Now All Restaurants are Taco Bell.flv - YouTube[/ame]
Of course, the most relevant part is cut off as Stallone asks for salt and bullock informs him that it was determined table salt was bad for you and ergo it is illegal.

RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.

No, we established nothing of the sort. You made that statement which is flatly false.
What part of FDA regulates tobacco products?
The Center for Tobacco Products is a section of the FDA and they regulate (surprise) tobacco products.

We're starting to rehash the same arguments again, and they'll get the same answers again: Number One, People are doing this "on their own" only because the FDA required the labels to list them (and still does so inadequately). So like it or not, that "on their own" action was spurred by this government agency doing its job. Number Two, you are correct, they are behind the times in doing this -- which makes your resistance all the more bizarre. As we both note, it's overdue.

I am only getting the same answers because you are refusing to accept that there is a dofference in consumer notification and regulating a product or practice. You are restating the same things without actually addressing the FACTS. People are consuming less trans fat WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN ITS USE. Period. That is fact &#8211; cold and hard &#8211; yet here you are advocating that the government NEEDS to get involved to reduce the consumption of trans fats. Do you not realize exactly how silly that is?

Should we have sold Thalidomide then? Was it "overreach" to deny thousands of Americans the right to be born deformed?

And as far as those labels, I'll just reiterate that the labeling requirements are already inadequate (I linked that earlier), allowing some trans fats to still go through unlabeled. And they're nonexistent in restaurants.

No. I guess that once you locate a substance that is really bad then suddenly you can start comparing x, y and z. What happened to not comparing one substance to another?
You do realize that I have been making the same claim all along &#8211; the &#8216;dangers&#8217; of trans fats are not even in the ballpark of many legal substances not to mention not in the same league as the substance that you mention.
As far as the labels go, I advocate (and have stated SEVERAL times) for the strongest labeling that the FDA can come up with. Why are you then brining up that the labeling is inadequate? If that is the case then increase labeling requirements. That is ALL that is required. You keep coming back to this straw man even though it has nothing to do with my points considering I already advocated for stronger labeling.

Sorry, that's absurd. The merchant part is the active part. The consumer is completely passive here. We have no power -- they have it all. Which is why we need an advocate to control what corporations do -- corporations which, lest we forget, exist at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around (this perverse idea of making gods out of our own slaves really needs a revisit, but I digress). Here comes your concession (bold) to what the FDA is there for...

That is unequivocally crazy. I have never been forced to purchase anything whatsoever from any corporation anywhere. The ONLY time I am forced to purchase anything is when the government gets involved. You have 100 percent of the power because it is YOUR money. This very conversation is solid proof of this. Do you really think that it is the companies choosing not to use cheap trans fats? Hell, do you think it was even them that wanted to use them in the first place? NO! It was the consumer. The consumer, by spending his/her cash on those products completely controls the market and what it produces. It is a GROSS misunderstanding of how business works to think otherwise. When a product falls out of demand it matters not how much the companies want to produce it because those that refuse to change disappear. The entire reason that trans fats have been going by the wayside is that Americans are becoming health conscious after ignoring it for so long. They have stopped purchasing those products in the same way that they used to and major companies have responded by ditching those products themselves.

To state that you have no power over your purchases is completely incorrect. To disregard the fact that is what drives the entire market is equally incorrect.

Oh I think there's more than zero. WAY more than zero. Read this. I linked it before but you weren't here yet. Explain to me how that got on the market if the government has more power than Monsanto. I feel like I just passed into Dada Surrealland typing those six words; it's like typing the words "his vagina"; doesn't compute.

Foxfyre has also noted, with good reason, the appointment of a former Monsanto lawyer to the FDA whose name appears in the memo in question. And we've noted the FDA inaction on things like nitrates and cottonseed and especially GMOs. Government, more power than industry??? Pleeeeeze.

Yes, government has more power over my life than any industry. Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with this fact.

Let me ask you- what company can take your children away from you and place them in another home if you do not conform to their standards? What industry can come into your house and search it if it suspects that there is something in your house they disapprove of? What industry can place you into an 8x10 room for years if you decided to ingest a substance that it finds unfavorable? What industry determines that you are not cap[able hearing the word fuck over the airwaves? What industry determines that you will either comply with rules concerning the speed you drive, where you walk or where you will place your garbage and then take your check from you if you fail to comply? What other industry can demand you be in a specific place at a specific time or you will see that 8x10 room again?

What industry can determine that I am a threat to its bottom line and eliminate me? The answer is non &#8211; period. The square peg that you are trying to fit into the round hole is the power that industry gains by influencing government. They do this precisely because government has much more power than they do. They try and convince government that we all need a specific product (like light bulbs) and oddly enough you support that activity so complaining about the power industry has over government is somewhat disingenuous. To the point though, I reiterate that there is absolutely zero argument that industry has more power over me than government.

That's a nice fantasy. If only the history and the lobbyism and the revolving door of DC didn't make it a farce. You and I have no choice here. That's an illusion.

Bullshit. Again, I am not forced to utilize any company for anything (unless, of course it is through the government). Maybe now you are beginning to realize why some of us see the mandate as so abhorrent &#8211; that is a prime example of the type of power you are railing against here. The type of power that those on your side SUPPORT!

Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top. And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line". Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass. Again.

No, that is entirely inaccurate. That time is because the government at least realizes that deciding that something is illegal overnight has HUGE ramifications. Ramifications that are unwarranted.

We don't disagree on the effective outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing. But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for their right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe. Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition. And you want to give them a pass.

Why would you do that?

I wouldn&#8217;t but that would be because I am not arguing for their rights because they have none. A corporation does not have rights as far as I am concerned. I, on the other hand, do and those rights include doing business and voluntarily exchanging goods as I see fit. Just because YOU want my argument to be about something else entirely does not make it so. Stop trying to make my argument fit your convoluted logic on rights. I have been quite clear on what I believe in this case.

It is impossible to "enjoy". It has no taste. It has no benefit. It has no nothing. You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application. We don't live in such a world. And further, there's no regulation on "you". It's a regulation on the food company. You can eat whatever you want. As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.

Sorry, but that does not fly. You have shot nothing down.

In one statement you declare that a company has control over you (even though they cannot force you to do anything) and I would have to assume that logic stems from some concept of availability. Then you state the exact opposite here.

The regulation is on me because it limits my ability to acquire what I want. That limit is essentially universal to boot so that logic is completely twisted. I guess you could claim that the government is perfectly within its rights to make all radio illegal except Christian talk radio. They are, after all, not limiting YOU in any way at all, just what you are capable of getting access too&#8230;

 

[Politico]

Good grief this is getting sillier and sillier.

 

[Pogo]

It's relevant because it's the basis of your point. I want to know how you got there. I always say if you can't justify your point, it could be that you don't have one.

As for the FDA in the second part -- that IS exactly their job. As you yourself noted further down (I'll bold it).

No it is not. You are still missing the entire concept that I am talking about. You want to keep focusing on the why even though I gave you many already that you simply do not want to acknowledge. The fact remains that all of that is completely irrelevant. It does not matter why one want to do the things that they want to do. No one is the arbiter of your motivations. If you cannot get past that simple fact then I fear that you and I are of so different minds that we are varelse to each other. I see your thought process as tyrannical because you seem to require that I justify myself to papa government BEFORE taking any action whereas I believe that freedom entails the government needing to justify itself before limiting my actions.

"Government" has nothing to do with this particular point. I'm not asking you to justify anything to the government, but to me. I'm asking you to justify your point rhetorically. Again, if you can't articulate a justification, then you just might not have a justifiable position. You need to make your case -- that's what's missing. You're not required to do so, but if you don't -- you simply haven't made a case.

Not that that puts you in an unusual position-- the question of "what are you deprived of" had been open throughout this thread. No one else has come up with an answer either. That's what the FDA comment period is for -- someone to come up with that answer.

The two concepts are miles apart.

Now you're injecting degrees where none existed. Nobody said "zero". Or any other number. We speak of substances that have been shown to be harmful AND have no redeeming qualities. It's not even a trade-off. There is nothing good in it.

Considering which, again, why do you want to eat it? I haven't seen an answer on that yet.

Again, irrelevant. I am really tired of going over this. I DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY MYSELF. Period. That is simple reality in anything that resembles freedom. I&#8217;ll give you a reason though: I want to eat it because it makes me think of fairies which reminds me of the forest that brings me to thinking about grass and the thought of grass makes me happy. Now, who are you or the FDA to decide that is not good enough? Who are you to decide that my irrational thoughts need to be controlled because you don&#8217;t think it is &#8216;redeeming&#8217; enough? The reason (and I gave you some in the last post not to mention that the FDA even gave a few in their own statements) that I, my neighbor or anyone else gives is utterly irrelevant.

That is what tyranny is &#8211; <insert agency here> deciding what I am allowed to do because they have unilaterally decided what is best for me WITHOUT my consent.

I'll have to take this as a concession that there is no such justification then, per above. Sorry, you don't get to claim "tyranny" on a point you can't justify because a freaking food agency does the job it's always been there to do. And since that agency is put there by Congress, which is an elected body, it's not at all without our consent. And again again, if you still object, we're in the 60-day comment period within which you can make your case TO the FDA. But you're gonna have to come up with something more of a basis than you've shown here since basically all you've posited is "I don't wanna".

This is real life, not Government Conspiracy Comics. There are definitely times when government overreaches. That doesn't mean everything the government does is overreach. Part of government's role is the safety and security of its people, and that means ensuring the water is safe to drink, it means ensuring the food and drugs sold meet safety standards, that planes in the air don't fly into each other, et cetera. What you're arguing here is that one particular food chemical should not meet safety standards.

Again -- why woud you do that? This is absurd.

RE tobacco-- we already established that FDA has no authority over tobacco, so that's not a valid comparison.

No, we established nothing of the sort. You made that statement which is flatly false.
What part of FDA regulates tobacco products?
The Center for Tobacco Products is a section of the FDA and they regulate (surprise) tobacco products.

Established here -- Post 506, November 9:

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.

I am only getting the same answers because you are refusing to accept that there is a dofference in consumer notification and regulating a product or practice. You are restating the same things without actually addressing the FACTS. People are consuming less trans fat WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN ITS USE. Period. That is fact &#8211; cold and hard &#8211; yet here you are advocating that the government NEEDS to get involved to reduce the consumption of trans fats. Do you not realize exactly how silly that is?

I'm forced to repeat the same answer yet again-- it's not without government intervention at all; the FDA required those labels (which again don't cover every instance of trans fats), and THAT is what has reduced its use. The food manufacturers certainly aren't going to police themselves, because, once again we repeat this too-- FOOD SAFETY IS NOT THEIR INTEREST. Food profits are. There would have been no public reduction in trans fats use without this previous government action. So if you're against the current proposal "denying" you something you can't define, then you have to also be against the previous action that spurred companies to reduce their own TF content after gummint made an issue out of it.

Drug companies, same thing; that's why I bring up Thalidomide, because if not for the denial of the FDA (which didn't happen elsewhere in the world) we would have had Thalidomide babies popping out like they were in the rest of the world. Why didn't we? Because the FDA did its job to deny the public its "choice" to have derfomed babies, that's why. Tyranny! The horror!

The fuller story on this was in Post 508.

By your logic we should have just passed Thalidomide in the name of Randism. I've got a friend who's terminally ill because the FDA wasn't as vigilant with another drug (Fen-Phen). I'm sure it makes her feel better that the tyranny of gummint overreach was averted, granting her the right not to breathe. Please. Somebody's got to advocate against the tyranny of irresponsible profiteering, and I guess with so many people intoxicating themselves on Ayn Rand's half-baked musings that falls to me.

You do realize that I have been making the same claim all along &#8211; the &#8216;dangers&#8217; of trans fats are not even in the ballpark of many legal substances not to mention not in the same league as the substance that you mention.

Irrelevant. We're not here to discuss all substances ever. This is about trans fats. Period. You keep trying to deflect. Stay on topic.

As far as the labels go, I advocate (and have stated SEVERAL times) for the strongest labeling that the FDA can come up with. Why are you then brining up that the labeling is inadequate? If that is the case then increase labeling requirements. That is ALL that is required. You keep coming back to this straw man even though it has nothing to do with my points considering I already advocated for stronger labeling.

Because as also noted upthread, those labeling requirements don't apply to everything. If you'd rather the FDA mandate labeling all TFs everywhere PLUS restaurants, you're in the comment period. But the bottom line is STILL that the action simply requires trans fats to justify their own safety, and that scrutiny is what you're arguing against, so that's the case you're going to have to make. And making a case that a potentially harmful-to-the public substance should not be proven safe is a task I don't envy.

For a flesh-out of the label inadequacy question I refer you to post 524:

For years, only true diet detectives knew whether a particular food contained trans fat. This phantom fat&#8212;the worst fat for the heart, blood vessels, and rest of the body&#8212;was found in thousands of foods. But only people who knew that the code phrases &#8220;partially hydrogenated vegetable oil&#8221; and &#8220;vegetable shortening&#8221; meant that trans fat lurked in the food were aware of its presence. Now, at least for foods with food labels, anyone can tell. Since January 1, 2006, the U.S. has required that trans fat must be listed on food labels along with other bad fats (saturated fats) and good ones (unsaturated fats).

... Of course, many foods don&#8217;t come with labels, such as foods sold in bakeries, cafeterias, schools, and restaurants. Because consumers cannot tell whether these unlabeled foods contain trans fats&#8212;and, in turn, cannot make the choice to avoid trans fat-laden foods&#8212;many cities and states have passed or are considering laws to eliminate trans fats in these foods. California&#8217;s governor recently signed legislation to phase out trans fats from restaurants by 2010 and from baked goods by 2011, the first state in the nation to do so. New York City became the largest city in the nation to require its restaurants, cafeterias, and schools to go trans free (the city has a &#8220;Trans Fat Help Center&#8221; to help food professionals comply), and other cities and towns, such as Boston, are following its lead.

-- Harvard School of Public Health​

--- you'll note, once again, that proposed legislations mentioned on state and municipal levels once again are aimed at food producers -- not consumers. So don't even go there.

That is unequivocally crazy. I have never been forced to purchase anything whatsoever from any corporation anywhere. The ONLY time I am forced to purchase anything is when the government gets involved.

Put the strawman down, nice and slow. I didn't say you were forced to buy something; I said they have control over what they sell. That's not "force"; it's power. It's owning all the marbles. And if your last sentence is a reference to the ACA, I fully agree.

You have 100 percent of the power because it is YOUR money. This very conversation is solid proof of this.

Your money (or mine) can only buy what is sold. When something either is not sold, or is sold only in a form you don't want, that's all the choice you have. As an example I mentioned my own preference for sugar free tomato sauce. Doesn't exist.

Do you really think that it is the companies choosing not to use cheap trans fats? Hell, do you think it was even them that wanted to use them in the first place? NO! It was the consumer. The consumer, by spending his/her cash on those products completely controls the market and what it produces. It is a GROSS misunderstanding of how business works to think otherwise. When a product falls out of demand it matters not how much the companies want to produce it because those that refuse to change disappear.

Good, let's do this.
No, I don't think it's Big Food taking the initiative to eliminate/reduce TFs; it was government action on labeling that brought attention, and they in turn responded to that. Without that intervention we'd be ingesting more on the level we used to, and dying accordingly, (see Harvard School of Public Health insert above) because as long as there was some profit motive in it, the food company doesn't care -- that's the FDA's job. The consumer didn't have jack shit to do with that. As noted above, companies can and will disguise undesirable substances to slip under the radar (you want to talk tyranny? hellloooo)... basically you're arguing against "government tyranny" so that corporate tyranny can just do whatever the fuck it wants. Not on our watch, hell no.

This idea that the consumer is somehow in charge is profoudly illusory. The merchant leads; we have no choice but to take what's offered. Example: Remember the mass demonstrations in Detroit in the 1990s where we the public demanded that cars be bloated up into upside-down bathtubs on truck frames so that we could pay more money for less safe lower mileage cars? Me neither.

The entire reason that trans fats have been going by the wayside is that Americans are becoming health conscious after ignoring it for so long. They have stopped purchasing those products in the same way that they used to and major companies have responded by ditching those products themselves.

Not the "entire" reason at all. For the umpteenth time, without the watchdog action, that consumer choice doesn't happen because we had no way to know. We're bombarded with advertising at every turn telling us why we should buy Zippo donuts; we get nothing of the sort about why we should not.

To state that you have no power over your purchases is completely incorrect. To disregard the fact that is what drives the entire market is equally incorrect.

Refuted above.

Yes, government has more power over my life than any industry. Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with this fact.

My example has everything to do with it. It's a direct look at a case where a food substance was ushered in by corrupt government officials who looked the other way. I can't think of a more relevant (if inconvenient) example. Please don't tell me you're unaware of the DC revolving door and lobbyism. Michael Taylor? Tim Geithner? Hank Paulsen? Any of these conflict-of-interest names ring a bell? Now that is government overreach -- or more correctly, government corruption.

You like to look up at the government puppet strings on its people; that's a good thing. We need that. Now look further up at the puppet strings above that level, i.e. the strings above them. I'm not stating something new and revolutionary here.

Let me ask you- what company can take your children away from you and place them in another home if you do not conform to their standards? What industry can come into your house and search it if it suspects that there is something in your house they disapprove of? What industry can place you into an 8x10 room for years if you decided to ingest a substance that it finds unfavorable? What industry determines that you are not cap[able hearing the word fuck over the airwaves? What industry determines that you will either comply with rules concerning the speed you drive, where you walk or where you will place your garbage and then take your check from you if you fail to comply? What other industry can demand you be in a specific place at a specific time or you will see that 8x10 room again?

What industry can determine that I am a threat to its bottom line and eliminate me? The answer is non &#8211; period. The square peg that you are trying to fit into the round hole is the power that industry gains by influencing government. They do this precisely because government has much more power than they do. They try and convince government that we all need a specific product (like light bulbs) and oddly enough you support that activity so complaining about the power industry has over government is somewhat disingenuous. To the point though, I reiterate that there is absolutely zero argument that industry has more power over me than government.

Those are government domains, rightly or wrongly, and some of those are, as in the Aspartame example noted above, subject to heavy influence by those interests that stand to gain financially, such as prisons, radar gun manufacturers and the like. But you're comparing apples and oranges here anyway; FDA doesn't lock people in rooms or take your check. It polices what food purveyers purvey. That has nothing to do with what you and I do.

And just to note one that is in my field of expertise, nobody says you can't hear the word fuck on the air -- doesn't work that way. The way it does work: Station X broadcasts the word fuck. What happens? Nothing. Not until Citizen Y files a complaint, which is then investigated by FCC (it's reactive). If that complaint is found to have merit, then the station might be fined. If egregious and expansive, the station may have its license not-renewed (I'm not sure this has ever happened in history but it's possible). But that license was already granted as a public trust to use the airwaves which are already defined as belonging to the people, so corporation-worship is again misplaced here. And by the way we give them that public airspace for free.

I guess the point of the above paragraph is that gummint is a bit more complex than the automatically fascist ogre you try to paint it as. It just isn't that simple.

Bullshit. Again, I am not forced to utilize any company for anything (unless, of course it is through the government). Maybe now you are beginning to realize why some of us see the mandate as so abhorrent &#8211; that is a prime example of the type of power you are railing against here. The type of power that those on your side SUPPORT!

? Huh?
Once again ----- are you a food company?
And if you are, what is the case that you can inject foods sold to the public that don't need to pass a safety test?

That's the whole issue here. Nothing more. Until you address this you're dancing. I mean conspiratorial soap opera is entertaining and all (I guess) but this is just launching rhetorical deep space missiles off the launchpad of rationality.

Entirely addressed in GRAS section at the top. And the period of time factor is another concession to industry; "we know you're selling poison but we'll let you take your time phasing it out so it doesn't hurt the almighty bottom line". Of course these industries could have been acting responsible in the first place by not using known bad stuff, but FDA is there to give them a temporary pass. Again.

No, that is entirely inaccurate. That time is because the government at least realizes that deciding that something is illegal overnight has HUGE ramifications. Ramifications that are unwarranted.

Except for the word "unwarrranted" we just said the same thing.

We don't disagree on the effective outcome; but literally it's not a ban, and those are not the same thing. But again, you're arguing on behalf of food makers (and let's be clear, you're arguing for their right, not yours) that they be allowed to sell food with chemicals that have not, and can not, prove themselves safe. Chemicals known to have adverse health effects while contributing absolutely nothing to nutrition. And you want to give them a pass.

Why would you do that?

I wouldn&#8217;t but that would be because I am not arguing for their rights because they have none. A corporation does not have rights as far as I am concerned. I, on the other hand, do and those rights include doing business and voluntarily exchanging goods as I see fit.

Then why are you wasting my time with this whole line of argument? Don't take that wrong, I respect your deductive reasoning as you know, but you're completely conflating an action on an industry into an action on the people. It has nothing to do with you as a consumer -- you still eat what you want. Matter of fact you just went to great pains to make that point above, that you have the choice. You still do.

And yes you are arguing for their rights to bypass safety standards, because that's exactly what this proposal puts an end to.

So .... wtf?

Just because YOU want my argument to be about something else entirely does not make it so. Stop trying to make my argument fit your convoluted logic on rights. I have been quite clear on what I believe in this case.

Not really, but the FDA proposal is clear enough. Why can't you just call it what it is without inventing doomsday scenaria over trans fats, of all trivialities? Again, you have to also argue for the right to dysentery in your water and carcinogens in your food and Thalidomide babies and by the way all the airport control towers have to come down. Gummint overreach all. Same logic.

It is impossible to "enjoy". It has no taste. It has no benefit. It has no nothing. You're living in the abstract here and have disconnected yourself from any real world actual application. We don't live in such a world. And further, there's no regulation on "you". It's a regulation on the food company. You can eat whatever you want. As long as you keep making this conflation, I'll just have to keep shooting it down.

Sorry, but that does not fly. You have shot nothing down.

In one statement you declare that a company has control over you (even though they cannot force you to do anything) and I would have to assume that logic stems from some concept of availability. Then you state the exact opposite here.

Explain-- how are those opposites? I think you're the one with the conflict here...

The regulation is on me because it limits my ability to acquire what I want. That limit is essentially universal to boot so that logic is completely twisted. I guess you could claim that the government is perfectly within its rights to make all radio illegal except Christian talk radio. They are, after all, not limiting YOU in any way at all, just what you are capable of getting access too&#8230;

The regulation STILL has nothing to do with you; that hasn't changed. It limits the ability of industry to sell what it wants -- which has been the case, once again, for centuries, everywhere. But what you acquire is still your business. This isn't comparable to cannabis as you're trying to imply. Nobody's about to bang on your door to search your house for trans fat foods and it baffles me that someone of your intellect would even entertain such a silly idea.

And no I would clearly never make such a case. Government has no say in broadcast content, and that's as it should be. And the comparison is absurd anyway; I might not like country music as a choice, but hearing it isn't going to give me and others heart attacks.

 

[Pogo]

Good grief this is getting sillier and sillier.

I'll trans to that.

 

[alan1]

FDA: Trans Fats Unsafe, to be Banned in Foods | WebProNews
snip,

In making its decision, the FDA pointed to an Institute of Medicine report that states there is no safe level of consumption for trans fats...

So the government will ban a product because "there is no safe level of consumption". In other words, that product will be removed from the market because it is unsafe at any level of use.
So, explain to me, why is cigarette smoking not banned at the federal level?
I wonder what the safe level of tobacco smoke is, as deemed by the federal government?
Perhaps it's the tax revenue received from tobacco users. Is that the "safe acceptable level of consumption"?
Federal government = Liars, thieves and hypocrites.

 

[novasteve]

So they should tax the hell out if transfats first?

 

[Pogo]

FDA: Trans Fats Unsafe, to be Banned in Foods | WebProNews
snip,

In making its decision, the FDA pointed to an Institute of Medicine report that states there is no safe level of consumption for trans fats...

So the government will ban a product because "there is no safe level of consumption". In other words, that product will be removed from the market because it is unsafe at any level of use.
So, explain to me, why is cigarette smoking not banned at the federal level?
I wonder what the safe level of tobacco smoke is, as deemed by the federal government?
Perhaps it's the tax revenue received from tobacco users. Is that the "safe acceptable level of consumption"?
Federal government = Liars, thieves and hypocrites.

Easy answer, as established upthread: SCOTUS ruled that the FDA has no authority over tobacco. Which then in the larger picture, proves your last line.

For the record, FDA does not propose to "ban" trans fats; it proposes to take them off the GRAS list. And that would require them to prove themselves safe, which by their nature artificial trans fats could not do (natural ones are not involved).

There's a wide difference between banning something and requiring it to prove itself safe. A lot of contrarians here would prefer to pretend it's the former going on, just so they can argue a marooned ideological point. But it isn't.

 

[novasteve]

Is water on the gras list given many people have died from it?

 

[Pogo]

Is water on the gras list given many people have died from it?

Water has never killed anybody. People have however died from idiocy.

 

[paulitician]

How long before the Communists/Progressives ban Thanksgiving? Have a happy one...while you still can.

 

[Pogo]

How long before the Communists/Progressives ban Thanksgiving? Have a happy one...while you still can.

Unfortunately neither the FDA nor any other entity has the power to ban Drama Queening...

Amazing -- even on a national holiday the conspiracy-obsessed find a way to give the gift of paranoia.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.

Are you biased against fat trannies?