BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.

Look around your house. There is not one thing in it that is not regulated. Nothing. Glass, plastic, wood, animal, vegetable, mineral. Even the shit you flush. That is Administrative Law. While all you constitutional scholars are bemoaning things like guns and roses, the government is regulating your life into the ground.

Here is a list of JUST the federal agencies. This doesn't contain state, county, or city agencies. The Executive branch of the government creates all these agencies and regulates your ass around in circles every day. But, hey! You can still own a gun!

You'll get no disagreement from me on that. And one day I may need that gun to help thin the herd of Statist morons who love to tell me what to do. So there is that.

 

[Pogo]

Using argumentum ad absurdum is not schooling anyone you hack.

Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.

That wasnt sarcasm, you were trying to make a point with exaggeration, and you failed miserably.

Apparently not, if you reacted the way you did.

Embarrassed? I would be too. As I said, don't post stupid shit in the first place and you won't get mocked.

Tissue?

 

[martybegan]

Not for those too stupid to get sarcasm, I guess not.

That wasnt sarcasm, you were trying to make a point with exaggeration, and you failed miserably.

Apparently not, if you reacted the way you did.

Embarrassed? I would be too.

I called your ass on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hey!! someone is drinking a soda 1/2 an oz over 16 oz!!! Call the cops!!!

 

[Sunshine]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.

By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition. One of the basic food groups --- right?

I think the proper ironic emoticon is...

Why not? Grapes are a food group. If I weren't sitting here waiting on UPS to bring medicine I'd go buy a bottle and have them for supper!

 

[Sunshine]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.

I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.

however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.

That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.

Nothing will change. Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.

 

[bendog]

As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.

I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.

however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.

That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.

Nothing will change. Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.

That's a very real possibility. There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt. Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.

Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage

 

[Mac1958]

.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are smarter than us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning know what's best for us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning care about us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are here to watch out for us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning are here to take care of us.

Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning must be obeyed without question.

.

 

[kiwiman127]

Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat. Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!

If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.

Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait. I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.

 

[Sunshine]

I get it that you don't think a democratically elected govt should have the power to remove a harmful ingredient from processed food when consumer choice has proven ineffective in removing it.

however, if people really really miss their transfats, I figure they'll elect someone who will reverse course.

That is, I think a significant number of people just don't care one way or another, and your are moonshite bat crazy.

Nothing will change. Chemists are all set to change the recipe to an even more harmful substance.

That's a very real possibility. There was show on tv not too long ago ... food channel or travel ... about how the food industry engineered the simple potato chip to have the most alluring combination of fat, sugar and salt. Below is a link to the underlying story of why consumer choice is not enough to alter trans fat use.

Michael Moss on Salt Sugar Fat and Why Potato Chips Taste So Good - iVillage

It isn't a possibility. It is a PROBABILITY. We were taught that oleo is better for you than butter when in fact it is nothing but trans fat. Butter is a natural fat that people have been ingesting for thousands of years.

 

[Sunshine]

Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat. Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!

If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.

Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait. I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.

Bu...bu....bu.... it's the starving poor in America who are obese!

 

[spirit_in_decay]

Transfats are poison.

America's obesity and diabetes scourge is costing several tens of billions of dollars a year.

Republicans always want to take us back to the 50's or earlier anyway, to a time before transfats, so I'm okay with banning them.

you would think with this statement right here, the government would want transfats in food, just to have americans spend more money on doctor visits, more money on medicine, and then more money back into the fast food markets, and then repeating the whole cycle. I think a lot of pharmaceutical companies are in bed with fast food corporations. I think that conspiracy is real.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.

 

[bendog]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.

I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind. There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better. I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.

 

[The Rabbi]

Considering how fat America is, it's clear that people can't monitor what they eat. Of course what trans fats do to a person's body end up effecting the cost of healthcare for everybody because we all pay for other people's stupidity.
Next time your insurance premium goes up, go ahead and scratch your size 40 waist and bitch about the government!

If you really think banning trans fat will make people thinner then you are totally delusional.

Rabbi, I was using America's fatness to demonstrate America's inability to eat healthy.
Trans fat causes Coronary artery disease, not so much obesity.
If you think that the way many Americans eat doesn't effect the cost of healthcare and thusly the size of your healthcare insurance premiums, I have a tropical island for sale in the Bering Strait. I'll give a USMB posters price reduction.

Argumentum ad absurdum. Classic fallacy.
Do you think banning trans fats will result in people being healthier?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.

I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind. There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better. I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.

And yet, as has already been proven, the market has come out with products with no trans-fat. So they're obviously competing, otherwise they wouldn't exist. The fact, however, is that foods that previously had trans-fat, and will now have some other nasty chemical instead, are still unhealthy for you. So why not just ban all unhealthy foods outright and be done with it? The important question here is where do you draw the line?

 

[kiwiman127]

As a consumer, I have many choices. If i were the manufacturer of "crisps" or "chips", I just got my choices removed by the government. Which in turn, takes another choice away from consumers.

The food industry creeates products people want. If people do not want them, then they will not make them any more. But to use a regulation agency as a prohibition tool, is of course, the very MO of a Statist.

By all means -- make the case for transfats in nutrition. One of the basic food groups --- right?

I think the proper ironic emoticon is...

Why not? Grapes are a food group. If I weren't sitting here waiting on UPS to bring medicine I'd go buy a bottle and have them for supper!

I volunteer at Goodwill a half dozen times monthly and serve the poor food (Thanksgiving is my favorite). It's pretty darn healthy food they are getting. I'm a health nut and I'd eat it. Sadly, there are days we run out of food.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, the pt chosen to be ignored by the quasi-libertarians is that one really has little personal choice. You want a crisp, you're gonna get some transfat. So your market option is to not eat them. The food industry has modified to an extent, a large one at that, but there just isn't a market for people demand no trans fat. There's no market solution unless the result is to keep trans fat. And they do add to cholesterol. Our crisps and chips may suffer, however.

There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.

I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind. There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better. I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.

I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats. There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
Trans fats are not detrimental to health. eating lots of them over many years might be. But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.

 

[bendog]

How The Food Industry Manipulates Taste Buds With 'Salt Sugar Fat' : The Salt : NPR

 

[bendog]

There's no option for a healthy chip because there's no such thing as a healthy chip. If you want to eat healthy then you don't eat chips to begin with. If you're not particularly concerned about it then what does it matter whether the unhealthiness comes from trans-fat or some other nasty chemical doing terrible things to your body? It's your choice. So you're right that there is no market solution to magically make unhealthy foods healthy, but there's no government magic to do it either. Chips are going to be crap with or without trans-fat.

I'm sorry I made the post too hard for you overly literal mind. There's no market for trans free foods because trans free foods do not SELL enough to overwhelm competing with trans foods, which apparantly taste better. I realize that, to you, it is improper for the govt to alter a market decision, even when the decision is proven to be detrimental to health.

I see you missed the pic of the potato chips proclaiming no trans fats. There obviously is a market for that, otherwise no one would label it such.
Trans fats are not detrimental to health. eating lots of them over many years might be. But people ought to take responsibility for their own health and monitor what they eat.

The market has proven ineffective in removing trans fats because MOST PACKAGED FOOD HAVE THEM. I realize you don't think the govt should be able to override consumer choice even when the choice is proven to be detrimental to the health of the population. Fine, take it to the ballot box.

 

[Papageorgio]

Good. Trans fats are like glue in your arteries.

So make the choice not to eat them. No need to have government intervene.