Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think what happened is all the food labeling requirements allowed the manufacturer to round down so anything lower than .5 was 0. That works for saturated fat, and total fat but not trans fat. Just by changing the labeling requirement we will see more manufactures going to "no trans fats" and labeling it as such.This is a major factor driving the new regulation. Government and business decided you did not have the freedom to decide what was in food products when they refused to add "trace amounts" of trans fat to labels. Instead the government conspired with the food industry to allow the fraudulent claim of "0%" to be used. That is the real case of the government determining what you can and can not eat. The misstated labels have been tricking citizens into eating an unhealthy commercial product against their will by lying on the labels. This law fixes that injustice and fraud.Even small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have harmful health effects. For every extra 2 percent of calories from trans fat daily, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent.Please offer proof that occasionally eating .5grams of transfats is injurious to health. We'll wait.Plenty of people smoke cigarettes, drink a quart a liquor a day, and use drugs and they are still alive but that still doesn't make it safe.Not what I said, dufus.You haven't known anyone who died of heat disease? Lucky you.
Plenty of people have eaten transfats and they're fine. Monitor the intake and you'll be fine.It is typcal of dems that they want to demonize the object and excuse the user.
How does one monitor the amount trans fats in their diet when process food labels say 0 grams when they actually contain up .5 grams? Actually any amount of trans fat is bad, worse than saturated fat. A trans-fat diet reduces blood vessel function by 30%, raises LDL ("bad")-cholesterol, and lowers HDL ("good")-cholesterol levels by about one fifth.
You can eat a normal meal with 3 servings, salad, and a desert and end up with 2 grams of trans fats yet the package labeling will indicate you're getting no trans fats.
Fats and Cholesterol Out with the Bad In with the Good The Nutrition Source Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.Even small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have harmful health effects. For every extra 2 percent of calories from trans fat daily, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent.Please offer proof that occasionally eating .5grams of transfats is injurious to health. We'll wait.Plenty of people smoke cigarettes, drink a quart a liquor a day, and use drugs and they are still alive but that still doesn't make it safe.
How does one monitor the amount trans fats in their diet when process food labels say 0 grams when they actually contain up .5 grams? Actually any amount of trans fat is bad, worse than saturated fat. A trans-fat diet reduces blood vessel function by 30%, raises LDL ("bad")-cholesterol, and lowers HDL ("good")-cholesterol levels by about one fifth.
You can eat a normal meal with 3 servings, salad, and a desert and end up with 2 grams of trans fats yet the package labeling will indicate you're getting no trans fats.
Fats and Cholesterol Out with the Bad In with the Good The Nutrition Source Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.Even small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have harmful health effects. For every extra 2 percent of calories from trans fat daily, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent.Please offer proof that occasionally eating .5grams of transfats is injurious to health. We'll wait.
You can eat a normal meal with 3 servings, salad, and a desert and end up with 2 grams of trans fats yet the package labeling will indicate you're getting no trans fats.
Fats and Cholesterol Out with the Bad In with the Good The Nutrition Source Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
its called ...medical advancements.....our grand parents did not have the knowledge or the medicine and the medical procedures we have today.....you could not figure that out?Our grandparents didnt live nearly as long as we do.60 or 70 years ago, medical researchers found that saturated fats from animal fats in foods such as butter increased our risk of serious disease. So we turned more to vegetable oils. This resulted in greater use of hydrogenated oils which reduced saturated fats but also increased trans fats in food. Then about 1990, medical researcher came to the conclusion that trans fats were far worst that saturated fats. Thus, we saw the movement away from trans fats. However, we still had to deal with saturated fats in foods.really?.....so if i eat broccoli every day ill get a heart attack because of it?....Ive eaten transfats for decades. I'm perfectly heatlhy.
Eat enough of anything and you'll keel over from a heart attack or stroke. It isnt the food, it's the eater.
When did it become the FEDERAL Governments job to BAN foods so they can push you towards a, HEALTHY diet?
It *IS* the FDA's job to keep poison out of the food supply. That's what it's uh, there for.
Oh sorry, you asked when. That would be 1848. Perhaps news travels show up your way. That's uh, waaay before Ayn Rand was born, and that's only the USA's federal government, it doesn't count all the other previous governments that have legislated food safety for uh, centuries.
Duh.
In order to reduce saturated fats, we began to reduce fats with all kinds of manufactured substances. Parallel to this, food processors wanted to extend shelf life. This gave rise to more preservatives. During all the years of increased processing, many foods began to loose favors and coloring that consumers expected so they began doctoring the foods with more artificial and natural food coloring and flavors..
So in a product such as a low fat cream, we are likely to see artificial coloring and favors, corn syrup, diglycerides, sodium citrate, dipotassium phospate, palmitate, carrageenan, and hopefully some cream. Study after study is finding that food additives may actually be making our foods less safe.
If we did as our grandparents did, buy more locally produced foods without all the additives, prepare more food from scratch and ate half as much, we wouldn't need all the crap they put in foods nor all FDA regulations on processors plus we would have better tasting and healthier foods. In other worlds, most the problems are result from our desire to eat large qualities are really crappy food.
You'll like higher food prices and earlier expiration dates!
Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.Even small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have harmful health effects. For every extra 2 percent of calories from trans fat daily, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent.
You can eat a normal meal with 3 servings, salad, and a desert and end up with 2 grams of trans fats yet the package labeling will indicate you're getting no trans fats.
Fats and Cholesterol Out with the Bad In with the Good The Nutrition Source Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.
since too many kids were too fat (like yourself) so that they couldn't meet weight req'ts to join the military. You know, the people repubs send to fight optional wars/enrich defense contractors? THOSE people.really?.....so if i eat broccoli every day ill get a heart attack because of it?....Ive eaten transfats for decades. I'm perfectly heatlhy.We've been eating transfats for decades. I havent seen anyone keel over because he ingested the stuff.Well, unlike some federally banned substances, trans-fats actually kill people.
By that point they're generally in a hospital bed, which are notoriously difficult to keel.
Eat enough of anything and you'll keel over from a heart attack or stroke. It isnt the food, it's the eater.
When did it become the FEDERAL Governments job to BAN foods so they can push you towards a, HEALTHY diet?
If labeling were voluntary, the label would read "a delicious food filled with vitamins, essential elements, and the purest ingredients to insure the health of your family", and the food would be filled with sugar, fat, and salt.Imagine if regulations for food labeling were voluntary, and some of these posters were in charge of determining what would go on the label of ingredients. They are debating and arguing over one of the most researched and studied additives in history and the world. It is called Denmark poison in Europe because Denmark banned it years ago as being an actual poison. Yet we have a radical right wing here in the US that wants to defend secretly adding it to our food chain.
If labeling were voluntary, the label would read "a delicious food filled with vitamins, essential elements, and the purest ingredients to insure the health of your family", and the food would be filled with sugar, fat, and salt.Imagine if regulations for food labeling were voluntary, and some of these posters were in charge of determining what would go on the label of ingredients. They are debating and arguing over one of the most researched and studied additives in history and the world. It is called Denmark poison in Europe because Denmark banned it years ago as being an actual poison. Yet we have a radical right wing here in the US that wants to defend secretly adding it to our food chain.
that mean old harry .....showing me what we know about trans fats,its not what i was led to believe....he can go fuck off.....So th effects of trans fats are mitigated by advances in medical technology.i have to explain this shit?.....have you ever heard of Medical Advancements? we made a lot of them last century.....how about those "wonder" drugs you see advertised on TV all the time?.....did they make a difference?........why is heart disease STILL the number 1 killer of Americans?...how many people with clogged arteries go and get them "unclogged" as compared to pre 1950?....take your head out of your ass Rabbi,you might actually learn why things are happening and have some of your questions answered.....Im not the one making the claim that we'll all die if we have any exposure to it, Nimrod. That would be you. Why you cant you explain why people are living longer now, that people have been consuming transfats for 50 years, than 50 years ago? If transfats were soooo bad you would see it in mortality statistics. But you dont. You see the opposite. People living longer healthier lives.in other words you cant back up anything you have said about Trans Fats not being harmful.....your surrender is also noted....Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.is that you dean?.....
You just made the case for not banning the stuff. Thank you, now fuck off.
LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.
snip:
The Obama administration is expected to all but ban trans fat in a final ruling that could drop as soon as next week, killing most uses of an ingredient that has been put in everything from frozen pizza to Reese’s Pieces but since deemed harmful to human health.
The agency may create some very limited exemptions, but the ruling could force food companies to cut trans fat use beyond the 85 percent reduction already achieved over the past decade — a key piece of the Obama administration’s broader agenda to nudge Americans toward a healthier diet. (Well hell, my mommy and daddy done both passed away. thank gawd for dear Leader)
The food industry believes low-levels of trans fats are safe. Industry leaders have banded together behind-the-scenes to craft a food additive petition that will ask FDA to allow some uses of partially hydrogenated oils, such as in the sprinkles on cupcakes, cookies and ice cream. The industry hasn’t shared details, but officials maintain the uses will represent “very limited amounts.”
For more than 60 years, partially hydrogenated oils have been used in food products under the status generally recognized as safe, which does not require FDA’s approval. But since the 1990s, reams of studies have linked trans fat consumption to cardiovascular disease, causing somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 premature deaths before the industry started phasing it out.
In late 2013 the Obama administration issued a tentative determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not generally recognized as safe. The move sent shock waves through the food industry, which has already brought down average consumption from more than 4 grams per day to about 1 gram per day — an exodus largely fueled by mandatory labeling imposed a decade ago. Scores of popular products, including Oreos and Cheetos, have quietly dropped partially hydrogenated oils over the years, but it remains an ingredient in many products, including Pop Secret microwave popcorn, Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls and Sara Lee cheesecake, as well as some restaurant fryers and commercial bakery goods.
If FDA sticks to its guns in its final determination — and most in food policy circles assume it will — the agency will be taking a firm step toward pushing out more of the remaining uses of trans fat.
all of it here:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/fda-trans-fat-ban-118003.html#ixzz3aQwZLZoW
how the fuck is that moving the goalposts?....you mean if someone shows something that is contradictory to what you say,then the posts must have been moved...you aint to bright rabbi.....you were pretty ignorant in the pot threads too....same thing....any science shown doesnt matter because you have been told different....and of course its all bogus....Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.Even small amounts of trans fat in the diet can have harmful health effects. For every extra 2 percent of calories from trans fat daily, the risk of coronary heart disease increases by 23 percent.
You can eat a normal meal with 3 servings, salad, and a desert and end up with 2 grams of trans fats yet the package labeling will indicate you're getting no trans fats.
Fats and Cholesterol Out with the Bad In with the Good The Nutrition Source Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
he cant do that.....because there is no study anywhere backing his claim that trans fats are not bad for you.....at least thats what someone told him....Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
Doooon't think so, Randbot.
Tellya what -- the case for the negatives of ingesting transfats has been made; make the case for the positives of ingesting them.
being fat has little to do with trans fats.....thats mostly to do with over eating and lack of exercise....since too many kids were too fat (like yourself) so that they couldn't meet weight req'ts to join the military. You know, the people repubs send to fight optional wars/enrich defense contractors? THOSE people.really?.....so if i eat broccoli every day ill get a heart attack because of it?....Ive eaten transfats for decades. I'm perfectly heatlhy.We've been eating transfats for decades. I havent seen anyone keel over because he ingested the stuff.
By that point they're generally in a hospital bed, which are notoriously difficult to keel.
Eat enough of anything and you'll keel over from a heart attack or stroke. It isnt the food, it's the eater.
When did it become the FEDERAL Governments job to BAN foods so they can push you towards a, HEALTHY diet?
Retired Generals Fear That Kids Are Too Fat for War WIRED
You dont see that you moved the goalposts on that one? You went from "any consumption of transfats will harm you" to "eating transfats is bad for you." Those arent the same statement, dumbshit. SUrely you see that, right?how the fuck is that moving the goalposts?....you mean if someone shows something that is contradictory to what you say,then the posts must have been moved...you aint to bright rabbi.....you were pretty ignorant in the pot threads too....same thing....any science shown doesnt matter because you have been told different....and of course its all bogus....Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....97.8% of statistics thrown out on the internet are completely bogus and unprovable.
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
But don't we have a right to eat unhealthy food if we choose to? I mean who gave the FDA the power to regulate things like slaughtering pigs? I don't see that in the constitution. I hope and pray Justice John "not Jay" Roberts returns this great nation to where it was before all this progressive legislation was unconstitutionally, and unnecessarily passed because of some muckraking by the likes of Upton Sinclair! (sarcasm)he cant do tha
he cant do that.....because there is no study anywhere backing his claim that trans fats are not bad for you.....at least thats what someone told him....Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
Doooon't think so, Randbot.
Tellya what -- the case for the negatives of ingesting transfats has been made; make the case for the positives of ingesting them.
Putting words in my mouth? LASt refuge of failed argumentation.he cant do tha
he cant do that.....because there is no study anywhere backing his claim that trans fats are not bad for you.....at least thats what someone told him....Moving those goal posts again?no one is saying a set percentage,they are saying Trans Fats are a MAJOR contributor to heart disease...... so if i show you 5 studies on this from very reputable institutions saying trans fats are not good for you and are a major contributor to heart disease ....you will say its bogus?...There is no proven scientific study. It is bogus. It is impossible to say "trans fats caused 15% of heart attacks" or "people who eat trans fats lost 3.5 years of life." THose things are impossible to quantify.even from proven scientific studies?.....so i should go buy a book on that study instead, because it will be more reliable right?....
It is like the study that supppsedly showed reducing levels of mercury in the atmosphere would "save" some huge sum of money because fewer people would die. It is impossible to quantify something like that as there are too many variables.
The only thing you can do is say "we fed these levels of this item to these animals and they died significantly earlier than those who werent fed that." That might indicate a prudent person should avoid a lot of consumption of whatever it is. But not enough to ban it.
I can tell you that eating bacon every day is going to contribute to heart disease. But I am not for banning bacon on that basis. And most people can eat bacon on an occasional basis and be just fine. Ditto with trans fat.
Doooon't think so, Randbot.
Tellya what -- the case for the negatives of ingesting transfats has been made; make the case for the positives of ingesting them.
