vortexring 0 #51 July 31, 2008 QuoteWell, now that the labels give the trans fat content explicitly; now that even fast food joints make the nutritional content of their food available just for the asking, why shouldn't these decisions now be up to the consumer? You mean to tell me that now that we have all the transparency, all the information provided, they have to take the fat totally out of the products? It's amazing, and galling, that you wish to put no responsibility on the consumer, and all of it on a government that will take products away from everyone just so that the irresponsible people can't hurt themselves with them -- and fuck those of us who know how to eat in moderation, who have self control, who educate ourselves about our choices. We are not left with the choices that people should have when they are capable of making good ones. We are to be treated by the lowest common denominator. That's a fucked-up plan, dreamt up by modern autocrats who want to tell us all how we must live and leave us no freedom to choose for ourselves. No, not really. Trans-fats have no nutritional value and are bad for you. So get rid of them. Look at obesity in the Western world. Why is it most commonly found amongst the poorer people? Is it because poor people are simply stupid and greedy? Or is it because they can generally only afford cheap & crap fatty foods? Sure, people in a perfect world would be aware of everything they're eating. And in a perfect world you wouldn't have trans-fats. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #52 July 31, 2008 It's not about a "protective nanny state" trans fats have been linked to coronary heart disease. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/03/trans_fat_heart_disease.html Read that article and then look at how much money has been spent on treating heart disease. The CDC found that in one year over $151 billion was spent in treating this disease. If trans fats are linked to CHD, what's wrong about banning them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #53 July 31, 2008 Quote " I only go to restaurants that have wifi access, I make the chef show me the brand names of the ingredients that he used to make the food and research them before I order.".................> I'll bet the chefs love you. Prolly more like wanna strangle you. Why don't you just learn to cook healthy AND STAY HOME. I was being sarcastic. To your question, I don't have to stay at home, the CA government has just banned trans fat:) I like to eat out, I can afford it and it saves me cooking and cleaning, I like that the government helps make it safe. I don't understand what is wrong with that, I can probably mail order trans fatty lard if I really miss it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #54 July 31, 2008 Quote That's a fucked-up plan, dreamt up by modern autocrats who want to tell us all how we must live and leave us no freedom to choose for ourselves. There is nothing in the law stopping you making your own, why don't you learn to produce trans fat yourself, then you can add it to your own food. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #55 July 31, 2008 QuoteSo I should be intimately knowledgeable about the pros and cons of every food additive and product on the market, give me a fucking break, that is one of the dumbest reasons for not banning there is. I expect the government to protect us from greedy folks who would make a quick buck and sacrifice our health, the government is there to serve us, making sure we don't get served dangerous food is one of these ways. Baaaaa, baaaaa...... How's the grass?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #56 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo I should be intimately knowledgeable about the pros and cons of every food additive and product on the market, give me a fucking break, that is one of the dumbest reasons for not banning there is. I expect the government to protect us from greedy folks who would make a quick buck and sacrifice our health, the government is there to serve us, making sure we don't get served dangerous food is one of these ways. Baaaaa, baaaaa...... How's the grass? Trans fat free Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #57 July 31, 2008 It seems that it might have been a better idea for California to simply require restaurants to identify on their menus which foods contain trans fat, perhaps with an explanation of why trans fat is bad. That would probably encourage most restaurants to just get rid of the trans fats from their foods without having to outright ban them. And a lot of restaurants here seem to be moving in that direction anyway. It seems fairly common now for menus to point out that they do not use trans fats in their food. Maybe leave it to the FDA to decide if it warrants being banned? Isn't that their job? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #58 July 31, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14kola.html The Panic du Jour, as the above article says. Basically trans-fat is about as bad as saturated fat in terms of raising serum cholesterol levels. I think passing bans on trans-fat is just going along with the current hysteria of the day. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #59 July 31, 2008 QuoteMaybe leave it to the FDA to decide if it warrants being banned? Isn't that their job? Bottom line: the FDA only sets minumum standards. A state is generally free to set even more rigid standards if it so chooses. It actually can be a complicated issue of whether (a) the principle of "federal preemption" means that the FDA's standards must be the exclusive ones, or (b) state laws and regulations can coexist in tandem with the FDA regs. But generally speaking, as long as state regs do not provide fewer protections than the federal regs do, it's legally OK for the state regs to be stricter than the federal ones. (Example: states can have anti-discrimination laws that are stronger than federal anti-discrimination laws; but states may not have laws that would weaken the effect of the federal laws.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #60 July 31, 2008 Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14kola.html The Panic du Jour, as the above article says. Basically trans-fat is about as bad as saturated fat in terms of raising serum cholesterol levels. I think passing bans on trans-fat is just going along with the current hysteria of the day. You may be right I don't know enough to argue that case with any merit other than googling alternative opinions. California has a track record of banning bad stuff while others still are in denial, smoking and smog are two good examples, at worse the trans fat will do nothing to our health, at best it will improve it. Given that I think is is prudent to be cautious and ban it until the facts are known. If California shows a reduction in heart problems great than other states in 10 years then it will be proved just like is happening with lung cancer and smoking now, otherwise not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 July 31, 2008 Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14kola.html The Panic du Jour, as the above article says. Basically trans-fat is about as bad as saturated fat in terms of raising serum cholesterol levels. I think passing bans on trans-fat is just going along with the current hysteria of the day. I seem to recall reading that the larger problem with the trans-fats is the hydrogenation and resulting oxidation?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #62 July 31, 2008 All lipids, especially unsaturated ones, can get oxidized. That's what happens when they go rancid or get burned. Saturated fats are the least vulnerable to oxidation because there are already Hydrogen atoms bound to all the Carbon atoms in the chain (ie, there are no double bonds) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 July 31, 2008 QuoteIf California shows a reduction in heart problems great than other states in 10 years then it will be proved just like is happening with lung cancer and smoking now, otherwise not. Given the limited scope of the ban, and the continued availabilty of oreos in stores, and the continued failure of California schools to stress PE, nothing is going to change in 10 years that can be attributed to this feel good legislation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #64 July 31, 2008 QuoteQuotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14kola.html The Panic du Jour, as the above article says. Basically trans-fat is about as bad as saturated fat in terms of raising serum cholesterol levels. I think passing bans on trans-fat is just going along with the current hysteria of the day. I seem to recall reading that the larger problem with the trans-fats is the hydrogenation and resulting oxidation? Oxidation?? Shit. OK, so..if I eat margarine, I rust? No wonder my joints are stiff in the morning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 August 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/weekinreview/14kola.html The Panic du Jour, as the above article says. Basically trans-fat is about as bad as saturated fat in terms of raising serum cholesterol levels. I think passing bans on trans-fat is just going along with the current hysteria of the day. I seem to recall reading that the larger problem with the trans-fats is the hydrogenation and resulting oxidation? Oxidation?? Shit. OK, so..if I eat margarine, I rust? No wonder my joints are stiff in the morning. LOL...nah, that's all that water ya drink, rusting you up. As I said, I can't recall the exact thing that was discussed about trans-fats that was considered so bad in comparison...I'll do some searching and see if I can find the reference again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
