Post: #1

Magnificent example of how to take action when it's too late:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health...ts.html?hp

Post: #2

It's about time.

Trans fats are not a natural fat but entirely created by man from certain food processes. For all purposes it's pure industrial waste and the reason I haven't eaten att McDonald's for 6+ years.

Post: #3

This is just another power grab by the FDA and our ever-growing leviathan state.

We don't need a transfat ban just like we don't need a ban on 16 oz. cups of soda.

This isn't the governments job.

Post: #4

What the fuck. If they were really concerned about public health vs. placating michael palen food hipster pussies they would ban cigarettes first. Tax transfats, make those fatties pay for better roads.

Post: #5

I'd rather ban high fructose corn syrup and tax foods by sugar content, but this works too.

The people who say that this isn't the government's job are wrong. With the cultural shaming mechanisms removed, fatties sure won't stop drowning in sugary shit by the way of some market mechanism. As distasteful as it might be (and barring events like a devastating war or natural disaster that causes mass starvation), the only thing left is government intervention.

Post: #6

Sounds like a plan to me. I don't care who does it, the government, parents, fox news, the Miami Heat. Somethings gotta give on the way we look at food, nutrition, and health. Over weight sick people are not helping society. An if you think you see lots of unhealthy fatties now wait till this next generation grows up and blows up. Something needs to happen for sure.

Post: #7

I support the idea behind this...but the government should also come out and admit what idiot jerks they were for actually encouraging people to eat this stuff back in the 1980's.

Post: #8

The overwhelming majority of people need an authority to tell them what to do, or else they languish in their own appetites and vices. The same goes for companies and greed. You need a referee blowing the whistle and keeping the basketball game from turning into jungle ball, which is pretty much what it is now. Since the Pope and local strongman don't have that kind of power anymore, it's gotta be the government. Other people's fuck-ups affect all of us--as we know all too well because of the ripple effect of having half of American girls be fatties--so you gotta regulate behavior somehow.

You guys give people's own self-control and sense of responsibility to everyone else way-way too much credit. The people running the government are pieces of shit, but this is a good move.

Post: #9

Heard on NPR this morning (paraphrasing) "trans fats are the worst type of fat, even worse than SATURATED FATS."

I rolled my eyes and LOL'ed.

Post: #10

Tuth, to make a point you've no doubt heard many times but that remains no less true. It is always easy to approve of the government imposing a rule that you happen to like and agree with. It's frustrating to see people doing something that seems so stupid, so why not just let the government make it illegal and get the job done?

The obvious problem is that some day in the not very distant future the government may want to decide something that we feel very differently about. For example, that everything written on this forum constitutes "hate speech". Or that game techniques are "inherently manipulative" and therefore a "form of sexual assault". And so on.

We need to be strategic about this. In the not-even-very-long run, the only position that makes sense is that the government's ability to dictate what people can or cannot do, say, consume, etc should be severely circumscribed. Otherwise, we will all be among the first to suffer.

Post: #11

Have any of you considered that maybe the government is the cause of and not the solution to some of these problems? I posted in another thread about this sometime ago. Why are processed foods loaded full of trans fats so cheap? They're cheap because of the government subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat. If they weren't subsidized, the price of those primary staples of our diets would no longer be the cheapest options.

Look at what's happening right now with the US governments protectionism of US sugar makers. The government has caused a distortion of the market where sugar prices are artificially high, which in turn protects the high fructose corn syrup monopoly in processed foods and lets the sugar cane/beet growers gouge the consumers for raw sugar.

The amount of fresh fruit and vegetables the government keeps out of the market by either buying them up and dumping them or paying the farmers not to grow them in the first place to prop the price up so as to not compete with corn, soy, and wheat, you would be as anti-government as I am.

My point is, that if you take the government out of the equation, the healthier options in our diets will be the cheaper options by a long shot. The energy expended processing these foods combined with the lack of artificially high priced healthy options will guarantee our diets will change in no time.

tldr version: gov'ment = bad

Post: #12

(11-07-2013 03:15 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  Have any of you considered that maybe the government is the cause of and not the solution to some of these problems? I posted in another thread about this sometime ago. Why are processed foods loaded full of trans fats so cheap? They're cheap because of the government subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat. If they weren't subsidized, the price of those primary staples of our diets would no longer be the cheapest options.

Yes, I totally agree with that. But since getting rid of these subsidies is not going to happen anytime soon (or ever, unless someone like Rand Paul becomes President...?), this is a step in the right direction.

Post: #13

(11-07-2013 12:25 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The overwhelming majority of people need an authority to tell them what to do, or else they languish in their own appetites and vices. The same goes for companies and greed. You need a referee blowing the whistle and keeping the basketball game from turning into jungle ball, which is pretty much what it is now. Since the Pope and local strongman don't have that kind of power anymore, it's gotta be the government. Other people's fuck-ups affect all of us--as we know all too well because of the ripple effect of having half of American girls be fatties--so you gotta regulate behavior somehow.

Government is made up of the same people that work for corporations. How can you say that individuals are only corrupt if they work for companies but not for a government. The government is just as greedy as a private company.

Post: #14

(11-07-2013 03:37 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 03:15 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  Have any of you considered that maybe the government is the cause of and not the solution to some of these problems? I posted in another thread about this sometime ago. Why are processed foods loaded full of trans fats so cheap? They're cheap because of the government subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat. If they weren't subsidized, the price of those primary staples of our diets would no longer be the cheapest options.

Yes, I totally agree with that. But since getting rid of these subsidies is not going to happen anytime soon (or ever, unless someone like Rand Paul becomes President...?), this is a step in the right direction.

So because they wont do away with these subsidies it means its ok to pass bad laws? Makes sense

Keep giving up more of your freedoms america... don't think regulating your food cant get worst and I guarantee they wont make the best decisions for everyone.

Post: #15

(11-07-2013 12:25 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The overwhelming majority of people need an authority to tell them what to do, or else they languish in their own appetites and vices. The same goes for companies and greed. You need a referee blowing the whistle and keeping the basketball game from turning into jungle ball, which is pretty much what it is now. Since the Pope and local strongman don't have that kind of power anymore, it's gotta be the government. Other people's fuck-ups affect all of us--as we know all too well because of the ripple effect of having half of American girls be fatties--so you gotta regulate behavior somehow.

You guys give people's own self-control and sense of responsibility to everyone else way-way too much credit. The people running the government are pieces of shit, but this is a good move.

Tuth, you know we usually are on the same sheet of music on these pseudo political matters, but this is a very steep slippery slope.

Do you really need to get a jaywalking ticket when there are no cars coming in either direction?

Post: #16

So, where do you all suggest we draw the line with the "no government regulation" thing?

Should we stop requiring nutrition labels?
Do we let fast food places replace their meat with whatever they want?
Can I put razors in Halloween candy?

Put murderers in jail? What's next? Everyone will be in jail. It's a slippery slope is all I'm saying.

People pull this slippery slope card yet they used to tell kids that weed was a "gateway drug" to heroine and crack but now we have states legalizing it.

Post: #17

By the way, this thread already has more replies than the one on internal border patrol checkpoints and I suspect will soon surpass the one on police giving that guy a colonoscopy for running a stop sign.

People will accept a police state but raise hell over man made fats and sugars.

Post: #18

They need to ban high fructose corn syrup too. But they never will because corn is their cash crop.

Yes we are at the point where we have to ban the things that are responsible for the demise of the people. Obesity is affecting everyone (not just the obese) and its only projected to get way worse.

By 2030 50% of Americans will be obese costing us $500 billion economically.

They're starting to realize drastic measures have to be taken.

I feel where you are coming from G but majority of the people are not like us.

Post: #19

I'm not a fan of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, but I don't see the alternative here. This is what happens when you allow nearly your entire food supply to be produced by a few giant companies.

If those companies start to cut corners to save a few bucks and basically end up poisoning people...well...oops? Their bad? That's it?

That's just not good enough. There are valid points to be made about the harmful effects of government intrusion into business, but ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply is not really one of them. That is fundamental shit that you can't fuck around with. If the government can't even prevent businesses from poisoning their fellow citizens for profit, then government truly has no purpose.

Really, more than anything else though, this is just another reason to eat real food and steer clear of processed shit as much as possible. Keep the government and big business both as far away from your health/body as possible.

Post: #20

(11-07-2013 08:32 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  So because they wont do away with these subsidies it means its ok to pass bad laws?

From what I understand all they are doing is proposing to change the designation as no longer GRAS (generally recognized as safe). So it won't be allowed to be added to processed foods.

No new law has been passed. The FDA already has this authority unless an existing law is repealed.

So if you really have a hankering for hydrogenated oil, you're still free to eat it, just not sell it as food.

I'm sure Crisco will still be around in some form or another.

I'm sympathetic to your view in a way, because it's saddening how people have to depend on the government to tell them what's OK to eat, and it would be better to get away from that. It was the government that pushed the whole anti-saturated fat, anti-animal fat crusade to begin with, and which promoted the use of margarine instead of "unhealthy" butter.

Post: #21

Yeah that's the thing. It's cool that they are taking action but I doubt banning trans fat will even put a dent in the obesity problem. There's to many other easy ways to get fat: corn syrup, dairy, processed grains to name a few.

To reverse obesity they really would have to get straight communist on the masses and put people in fat camps and or have fines and penalties for being obese. Fat people should be shunned from society honestly. 'No fat people allowed' is a sign I would like to see in businesses around the country.

Post: #22

(11-07-2013 09:35 PM)scorpion Wrote:  If those companies start to cut corners to save a few bucks and basically end up poisoning people...well...oops? Their bad? That's it?

Poisoning, really? How are trans fats suddenly a "poison"? True, I've seen plenty of zombies walking out of Dunkin Donuts but I'm pretty sure they were that way already when they came in. And some of them were ancient so if it's a poison it's an awfully slow acting one.

Yes, trans fats when consumed in sufficiently large quantities are probably not very healthy. If that makes them a "poison" then it's not hard to see how "coercive arguments" are really, when it comes right down to it, no different from "rape".

The analogy may seem far fetched but it is not. Start with a few "studies", add a healthy amount of rhetorical exaggeration, hold some hearings, give a government agency regulatory authority, and you never know what might come out.

Post: #23

Poison because they rob the body rather than providing nutrition. Once ingested the body doesn’t know what to make of the end product. Trans fats reek havoc in cell metabolism.

Post: #24

Yes, I understand the biochemistry.

But what is the end result of all this ominous "havoc" that they wreak? Do you fall down and die? Do you get very sick and vomit for a week? Do you lose the use of your left ear, even?

No? Then maybe "poison" is not the word we're looking for.

I think people have an almost mythological fear of the uniquely terrible trans fats just sitting there, indestructible and doing their unstoppable evil work.

But plenty of people have consumed a very substantial amount of these sinister molecules and they seem to be doing fine. They do die eventually, but they're living longer than ever.

Again, I'm not disputing the idea that if you eat a diet that is quite high in trans fats, you will probably -- though by no means always -- increase the risks of some health problems by some percentage. That does not make them a "poison" and I think that this kind of exaggeration is something to watch out for in all sorts of contexts.

Post: #25

poi·son
[poi-zuhn]
noun

1. a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.