The FDA wants to ban all trans fats
- Thread starter cuda.1973
- Start date
What about the science tells you that trans fats need to be banned? And are you distinguishing between man-made trans fats and naturally occurring trans fats, or is banning both okay to you?
LOL. I'm not sure where NT15 gets his science. As someone who's had family members who've had heart attacks it's about time. The CDC has a study that found 10,000 to 20,000 heart attacks and 3,000 to 7,000 coronary heart disease deaths could be stopped by this.
So, are you advocating all items that increase the risk of heart disease or just this one?
Never said that. Why is this a big deal to you guys? Most places have already started voluntarily removing this from their menus.
The issue is not what is specifically being banned.
And you partially answered your own question with your final statement.
The proposed rule deals only by man made trans fats. Those naturally occurring are found in very small amounts in dairy & meat. It makes zero health sense to add man made artery clogging trans fats to the food supply.
This link may clear up some misunderstandings
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/trans-fat-facts-8/trans-fat-truth
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/trans-fat-facts-8/trans-fat-truth
Funny. Could that be market pressure adjusting food composition?
It is a big deal because the government does not need to be in the business of dictating the lifestyle of citizens. We can ban loads of things that are "bad" for us, but that is not exactly a free society.
I think everything should be allowed; when there is evidence that certain things (cigarettes, trans fats, etc) cause health issues, put out a notice to all. If anyone says "It won't hurt me", but then it does in fact bring on health problems, take em out to the woods and shoot 'em for being stupid. No reason my tax (or health care) dollars should support a health care industry that supports idiots who want to (and should be allowed to) die.
So you distinguish between "man-made" and "naturally-occurring" when deciding what is and is not okay to be added to foods? Naturally occurring substances that also clog our arteries are okay in your opinion?
You still don't understand, do you?
It's not the government's place to decide what people can and can't purchase and consume. It's the Constitutional freedom of each and every person to determine that for themselves!!
They don't get the difference between Salmonella & E. coli and trans fats. Maybe I should post a link to Wikipedia?
Or the difference between sitting down in a restaurant, looking at a menu and deciding what you want to eat, OR
sitting down in a prison cafeteria and them deciding what you will and won't eat.
The first one you do by your own choice.
The second is done for you by the government.
Get it now, Bamaro?
So 3,000 to 7,000 deaths could be prevented by banning trans fats? Maybe we should ban automobiles and save 30,000 to 40,000 lives per year. We should also ban alcohol and save 75,000 lives per year.
There are risks in life. Enabling people to evaluate, avoid, minimize and/or cope with risks on their own terms is the very definition of a free society.
This isn't about saving lives - this is about saving money. When the state pays the bills, the state has justifiable stake in individual choice. It's no different from getting a business loan or independent financial backing. The financiers get to approve the plan. If they don't approve, they don't finance. Except in this scenario, the financiers are going to finance with your and other people's money whether you want them to or not. Consequently, they get to write the plan, and you get to follow it, no ifs, ands, or buts. Like it or not, that's the way it is. So either live with it or burn it down.
So you are cool with companies putting this stuff in food knowing the side effects, not labeling it on menus as containing trans fat, and letting people eat it? Feeding it to kids at school cafeterias?
With things like tobacco and alcohol you know what it's in and what it's not in and people too young to make informed decisions are banned from buying it. Maybe if it was clearly labeled everywhere so i could avoid it that would be cool, but that would require the government making a law (which you guys would be against.)
Everyone says let people do what they want, but most of America is stupid. I'd rather just ban it. Nobody would miss it. Then Jim Bob and Lulu wouldn't drive my healthcare cost up when they eat fast food and have a heart attack and the underwriter sticks them in my age group demographic for the state of Georgia when they calculate my risk on my policy.
Last edited:
You actually answered your own question. Food companies are not adding naturally occurring trans fats to food, its there already in small amounts. The rules would only address adding trans fats to food.
I really dont care much one way or the other whether the FDA bans it from processed food or not. I am satisfied with the labeling requirements that exist for processed food so that I can make an informed choice. I fail to see however where this is a major constitutional issue worth getting my drawers in a bunch over.:rolleye2: However, I would like the labeling to require food preparers (restaurant/fast food etc) to specify how much they have added to their food.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 20
-