California becomes first state to outlaw trans fats in restaurants [Archive]

Soyut

26-07-2008, 00:48

I don't think it's a bad idea. It's not like they're banning fatty foods. The foods will still taste the same, they'll just be using healthier types of fat.

The authors carefully review many studies, including several with quite small random samples. The estimated mean effects of common levels of trans fats on cardiovascular disease are typically large, but one of the best data sets that they analyze cannot reject (at the 95 percent confidence interval) the conclusion that there is either no effect of trans fats on this diseunase, or only a small one.

The fact of the matter is, scientific consensus about whats good for you and whats not seems to change a lot. Like when everyone was upset about saturated fats back in the early 90s. They had to force feed mice absurd amounts of saturated fats before they ever started to have problems. And the debate about weather fresh veggies are better than canned veggies. They concluded that both products are good for you in different ways.

The root of this movement seems to stem from the idea that the government can intervene in the lifestyles and diets of the average person for the better. And the fact that restaurants, and not private kitchens, were targeted, makes me believe that the government is not interested in taking away your choice to consume trans-fats all together, but rather, that it wants to take the choice away from people who are unaware that they have the choice to begin with. I can't think of a better definition of a nanny state.

The NYC law has been a disaster for businesses, who payed in excess of $60 million to adjust. I have to admit that this seems absurd. I can't imagine what all the local Californian restaurants are going through right now.

Lunatic Goofballs

26-07-2008, 01:19

The Scandinvans

26-07-2008, 01:51

Let the people vote on the matter, then let us see how the vote turns.

FreedomEverlasting

26-07-2008, 02:19

As long as people are reasonably informed as to what the restaurant's food will be like, I have no problem with them using trans fats, its kind of silly to ban something just because some people are too stupid/unwilling to go on a diet.

If you even know what trans fat is, good for you. But if you think the problem of trans fat is only "weight", though it is one of the problems, you shouldn't really be talking about "reasonably informed".

The problem comes in when you consider just how informed are people about what they are eating. Not only do they not tell you what it contains, people are typically ill inform about what most of the chemical they eat everyday even do.

I have never went to a restaurant where they inform me rather or not they use partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, animal fat, heat separated vegetable oil, or cold press. I have doubts that even the workers that particularly know what that all mean, never mind informing me about it.

The FDA have been sitting on their ass for too long and it's time that individual states take action on public health.

Read a label sometimes, see how many of the ingredient list you actually recognize, then come back and tell me how meaningful it is to most people when they saw "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" on their package.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 02:33

Didn't we try this one with beer and the like? And didn't it make people drink even more? We never learn do we?

And what, we're going to see some kind of fat-related-speak-easy (speak-greasy?) springing up?

I don't think it's quite the same ballpark.

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 02:36

I am against the banning of any substance, so, I am against this law.

Thalidomide?

Absurd. If one does not want Trans fat in their diet, don't eat it. The nutritional information is all publically availible. Yet more government mingling in areas that they do not need to be in.

In a very small number of restaurants in a very small number of cities or counties -- no whole states as of yet, with NY and CA featuring ballot issues on it this fall [source (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121313686579962255.html?mod=2_1566_leftbox)]. Sure as hell not everywhere.

Information is the key to making decisions about food. The law should require that the nutrition information be included on every menu, NOT that restaurants should be barred from cooking however they wish. This is one of the few cases where the market can, and therefore should, sort things out.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 02:36

Schwarzenegger signs law banning trans fats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_bi_ge/california_trans_fats)

So, just to clarify: Californians are absolutely mature, level-headed and responsible enough to own deadly weapons, but apparently we can't be trusted to make our own choices about what goes in our bodies.

What do you say, fellow Californians, U.S. Americans and NSGers? Will we see trans fats outlawed in the U.S. in our lifetime? How about in Britain? What about the rest of the west?

It's a damn good idea.

Especially in the US, the government is the bitch of the food and drug companies. There should be some control over what is being placed into our food supply.

(Especially since food and drug companies are so fond of cheating. Find out that people don't like what you're putting in the food? Change it's name so no one knows - yes, I'm looking at you, monosodium glutamate).

People aren't all chemists. They can't be expected to make THOSE kind of informed decisions, especially when the information is with-held.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 02:41

Information is the key to making decisions about food. The law should require that the nutrition information be included on every menu, NOT that restaurants should be barred from cooking however they wish. This is one of the few cases where the market can, and therefore should, sort things out.

The problem is - most people can't make informed decisions on that kind of data. Even if the data was presented in a deliberately helpful fashion, which it isn't.

Current labelling laws require you to list your ingredients, they don't specify that you have to list what your ingredients 'are'.

Sure - you can see that the red food colouring is cochineal... but does everyone know that's made by crushing up bugs?

Sure - you know that your chips have midified starch in them (sounds okay, right), but how many people know that 'modified starch' can be another way of phrasing 'monosodium glutamate'?

How many people know that American food companies use ingredients that have been highlighted in Europe as causing attention deficit disorder? Or Asthma? How many Americans know THOSE things are especially prevalent in children's products?

Yootopia

26-07-2008, 02:42

I bet McDonalds is gutted.

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 02:53

The problem is - most people can't make informed decisions on that kind of data. Even if the data was presented in a deliberately helpful fashion, which it isn't.

Current labelling laws require you to list your ingredients, they don't specify that you have to list what your ingredients 'are'.

Sure - you can see that the red food colouring is cochineal... but does everyone know that's made by crushing up bugs?

Sure - you know that your chips have midified starch in them (sounds okay, right), but how many people know that 'modified starch' can be another way of phrasing 'monosodium glutamate'?

How many people know that American food companies use ingredients that have been highlighted in Europe as causing attention deficit disorder? Or Asthma? How many Americans know THOSE things are especially prevalent in children's products?

Well said, and I agree (didn't know about the MSG thing). However, caveat emptor applies. If you want to know what those things are, the information (while perhaps impossible to fit on most labels in a font size legible to humans), is available in libraries and the Internet across the nation. That's why the law should never be a ban, but a demand for full disclosure on menus. Let the buyer figure out which is which. If they're truly concerned, they'll look it up, if they're not, they won't be inconvenienced and can go on eating like they did before.

Hassling the least number of people should be the law's goal, not banning things which are not forced upon consumers.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 03:07

Well said,

Awww, stop. :)

and I agree (didn't know about the MSG thing). However, caveat emptor applies. If you want to know what those things are, the information (while perhaps impossible to fit on most labels in a font size legible to humans), is available in libraries and the Internet across the nation. That's why the law should never be a ban, but a demand for full disclosure on menus. Let the buyer figure out which is which. If they're truly concerned, they'll look it up, if they're not, they won't be inconvenienced and can go on eating like they did before.

The problem is - how do they know to be concerned?

Mercury. (Random, right?) Migrates up food chains. How many people realise that the type of tuna you eat determines how much mercury is in it?

How many people even know you should be worried about Mercury in tuna? Or what it does?

Hassling the least number of people should be the law's goal, not banning things which are not forced upon consumers.

'Forced' isn't necessarily the only determining factor, though... how about things which are hidden from customers? Maybe lies.. maybe deceit... maybe just... not being totally forthcoming?

Isn't it defence? (One of the few things I think we ALL agree governments are good for? Or supposed to be...) Protecting the citizens from harm?

Should food companies really be allowed to poison people, just because they're telling you the NAME of the poison (if you ask REAL nice, and if you can read Greek).

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 03:16

The problem is - how do they know to be concerned?

Mercury. (Random, right?) Migrates up food chains. How many people realise that the type of tuna you eat determines how much mercury is in it?

How many people even know you should be worried about Mercury in tuna? Or what it does?

Agreed, but where's the line that separates consumer responsibility from vendor responsibility? How on Earth are tuna companies supposed to put all that information on a typical tuna can? At some point people have to be bothered to look out for their own health, or accept the consequences of being deliberately ignorant. Mercury in tuna has been an environmental news story for some time now.

'Forced' isn't necessarily the only determining factor, though... how about things which are hidden from customers? Maybe lies.. maybe deceit... maybe just... not being totally forthcoming?

Isn't it defence? (One of the few things I think we ALL agree governments are good for? Or supposed to be...) Protecting the citizens from harm?

Should food companies really be allowed to poison people, just because they're telling you the NAME of the poison (if you ask REAL nice, and if you can read Greek).

Again, agreed. However, when food companies and the administration that appointed the watchdogs (like the FDA) are pals, you're not always going to get the information you need in a way that helps make a healthy decision. I'm not saying it's right, far from it. But if there's a Consumer's Union for household products and cars, then why not a Consumer's Union for food? The information is available, it's just a matter of managing to get it to the most people without obfuscating it (as greedheaded corporate interests might) or making an mountain out of a molehill (as alarmist eco-wonks might). That takes a responsible consumer.

Unfortunately, "responsible" is the last thing most consumers are. If it makes me callous to think that in this day of fingertip information, those who don't look after what they're eating are getting what they've agreed to (tacitly or otherwise), well I'm sorry.

New Wallonochia

26-07-2008, 03:35

I bet McDonalds is gutted.

Actually, most fast food places in the States switched to 0 trans fat oils after NYC banned it for fear that more polities would do the same. I only know this because I was working at a KFC at the time.

Vetalia

26-07-2008, 03:40

FreedomEverlasting

26-07-2008, 04:14

Realistically, do trans fats materially impact the quality of the food served? If not, banning them doesn't seem to be a particularly significant inconvenience for either side, especially since a lot of chains have already eliminated them for health and legal reasons.

Yes it does. Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil pretty much never goes bad, because it is a man made substance which cannot be digested by anything, including bacterias. Since it is in solid form, it is often mixed with regular heat processed oil and created Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil. It works as a preservative and therefore help save money for the industries.

As far as taste goes, well let's just say most of us won't notice the difference.

Of course, our body isn't capable of using them either, which is how products that use this oil does not need to add this onto the calories. This has been know ever since the product was invented, and it was in fact advertised as a form of health food and an alternative to saturated fat at one point. What they did not tell you however, is that your body stores them nevertheless but are just never able to use them for any purpose. So no matter the exercise you do, you can never get rid of them in any way other than the small quantity excreted through your skin.

Now how much you want to care about that of course is up to you.

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 04:22

Yes it does. Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil pretty much never goes bad, because it is a man made substance which cannot be digested by anything, including bacterias. Since it is in solid form, it is often mixed with regular heat processed oil and created Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil. It works as a preservative and therefore help save money for the industries.

As far as taste goes, well let's just say most of us won't notice the difference.

Of course, our body isn't capable of using them either, which is how products that use this oil does not need to add this onto the calories. This has been know ever since the product was invented, and it was in fact advertised as a form of health food and an alternative to saturated fat at one point. What they did not tell you however, is that your body stores them nevertheless but are just never able to use them for any purpose. So no matter the exercise you do, you can never get rid of them in any way other than the small quantity excreted through your skin.

Now how much you want to care about that of course is up to you.

Which is at least a partial summary of my point. Thanks!

Trollgaard

26-07-2008, 04:25

I bet McDonalds is gutted.

I didn't think McDonald's used trans fats anymore...

They don't in the french fries, anyway.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 04:31

Yet another example of the government doing something (no matter how ridiculous and stupid it may be) just to make it seem like they are doing something.

Why do they do it?

Thumbless Pete Crabbe

26-07-2008, 04:34

Snafturi

26-07-2008, 04:37

Didn't we try this one with beer and the like? And didn't it make people drink even more? We never learn do we?

Yes, I can see it now. People will be adding hydrogen atoms to their food to get their fix on single bonds. They'll be straightening their fatty acids in their bathtubs! They'll be hydrogenating in their basements! It'll be a new reign of organized crime! Everyone panic~!!!!! Panic nao1!!!!!!!

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 04:41

Yes, I can see it now. People will be adding hydrogen atoms to their food to get their fix on single bonds. They'll be straightening their fatty acids in their bathtubs! They'll be hydrogenating in their basements! It'll be a new reign of organized crime! Everyone panic~!!!!! Panic nao1!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

I'm sure you knew what he meant.

Regardless, this ban is not going to make people lose weight or make them healthier, especially as people continue to sit on their fat arses all day in front of a computer posting on NSG.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 04:44

I think the obligatory 'capitalism makes people fat' is appropriate here.

Snafturi

26-07-2008, 04:46

:rolleyes:

I'm sure you knew what he meant.

Regardless, this ban is not going to make people lose weight or make them healthier, especially as people continue to sit on their fat arses all day in front of a computer posting on NSG.

My point is the disproportionate anger is asinine. One can still stuff themselves silly with junk food. Actually, the junk food will be better tasting. Butter tastes good, lard tastes better. Hydrogenated fat is kinda bitter. So really, people are breaking out their pitchforks because they can't get their crappy tasting junk food.

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 04:48

I think the obligatory 'capitalism makes people fat' is appropriate here.

*sigh* Are or were there never any fat Communists, comrade?

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 04:48

My point is the disproportionate anger is asinine. One can still stuff themselves silly with junk food. Actually, the junk food will be better tasting. Butter tastes good, lard tastes better. Hydrogenated fat is kinda bitter. So really, people are breaking out their pitchforks because they can't get their crappy tasting junk food.

Which is why this law is ridiculous since people can still stuff themselves silly with junk food.

And yes you are right people are unhappy because they can no longer get their crappy tasting junk food. So what was your problem.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 04:50

I think the obligatory 'capitalism makes people fat' is appropriate here.

While communism makes the common man malnourished.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 04:52

While communism makes the common man malnourished.
Hardly, your just going off western 'sources' I assume. In capitalism the common worker barely gets by paying off the mortgage and buying food every week, while you have the pampered 'kids' of the petite-bourgeois getting fat off the profits of exploited workers. Weight is the surplus of exploitation, and it looks about as pretty as exploitation too.

Snafturi

26-07-2008, 04:53

Which is why this law is ridiculous since people can still stuff themselves silly with junk food.

And yes you are right people are unhappy because they can no longer get their crappy tasting junk food. So what was your problem.

The idiocy is my problem. So what? Why should this concern anyone? It's not making anyone's lives less livable. It's not taking away anyone's God given right to eat themselves to death. People are acting like this is akin to taking away their freedom of speech. This should be as much a topic of discussion as Amtrak railway fee increases.

Thumbless Pete Crabbe

26-07-2008, 04:54

I think the obligatory 'capitalism makes people fat' is appropriate here.

Having choices make poor decisionmaking possible. Such a pity. :(

Andaras

26-07-2008, 04:56

Having choices make poor decisionmaking possible. Such a pity. :(
It's not a matter of choice. In socialist societies everything was ordered clean, uniform, directed. Capitalist society is dirty, crime-ridden and full of the distortions of drugs, overweight and other social ills.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 04:57

The idiocy is my problem. So what? Why should this concern anyone? It's not making anyone's lives less livable. It's not taking away anyone's God given right to eat themselves to death. People are acting like this is akin to taking away their freedom of speech. This should be as much a topic of discussion as Amtrak railway fee increases.

Well, while they may be idoicy people like the taste of something and then the government comes in and takes it away because they think it will help. To compare it to a ban on free speech is pretty stupid, but I can only say that would be typical from an American. I am, however, against the law for different reasons the main one being that this is just the government palying tabloid politics and just doing something because they have heard from some interest group and think yes this is quick and easy to do and it will get our name in the paper that will make it seem like they are doing something for us.

FreedomEverlasting

26-07-2008, 04:58

Which is at least a partial summary of my point. Thanks!

Not really, because it doesn't change the fact that part of the government's job is to inform and ban toxic man made substance from entering the food source/water supplies.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:01

Hardly, your just going off western 'sources' I assume. In capitalism the common worker barely gets by paying off the mortgage and buying food every week, while you have the pampered 'kids' of the petite-bourgeois getting fat off the profits of exploited workers. Weight is the surplus of exploitation, and it looks about as pretty as exploitation too.

Yeah, I hate those "western sources" you know that Ukranine family who moved to Australia in the early 90's to make a better life for themselves.

As for your second part it is exactly the reason why we should allow child labour back to stop these fat kids livving off the exploitation of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwvwWL5mkC0

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:03

Yeah, I hate those "western sources" you know that Ukranine family who moved to Australia in the early 90's to make a better life for themselves.

As for your second part it is exactly the reason why we should allow child labour back to stop these fat kids livving off the exploitation of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwvwWL5mkC0

Oh great, you quoted a tv show which weekly glorifies capitalism, poverty and exploitation under the guise of 'humor'.

Fail.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:05

Oh great, you quoted a tv show which weekly glorifies capitalism, poverty and exploitation under the guise of 'humor'.

Fail.

Yes, yes it does, and that wasn't my point at all at how communism is bad. I would suggest that you fail at comprehension.

Well I thought it was funny.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:10

Yes, yes it does, and that wasn't my point at all at how communism is bad. I would suggest that you fail at comprehension.

Well I thought it was funny.

I tend to find the glorification of exploitation, injustice and economic tyranny to be generally distasteful. It seems the scum at the ABC however don't have a problem with it.

Your sense of 'humor' has obviously been distorted by capitalism into malice and classism.

Snafturi

26-07-2008, 05:18

Well, while they may be idoicy people like the taste of something and then the government comes in and takes it away because they think it will help. To compare it to a ban on free speech is pretty stupid, but I can only say that would be typical from an American. I am, however, against the law for different reasons the main one being that this is just the government palying tabloid politics and just doing something because they have heard from some interest group and think yes this is quick and easy to do and it will get our name in the paper that will make it seem like they are doing something for us.

Which is exactly my point. The post I quoted equated this with prohibition. No, for this to be like prohibition all junk food would have to be banned.

People are making a gigantic mountain over something that they wouldn't even notice happened if the media hadn't covered it. Just like the myriad of other laws that really don't affect the vast majority of us.

Edit: Hell, you can still get trans-fats in California provided they are prepackaged and labeled.

Anti-Social Darwinism

26-07-2008, 05:22

In other news: we (Californians) spend 8 billion (yeah, Billion) dollars a year on prisons which are the disgrace of the entire nation. They're a joke among jokes - a, $8 billion punchline. No one can match our failure rate, and it's only getting worse.

But yeah, trans fats are bad. Good job, Arnold.

And don't forget the California school system. It used to be considered the best in the nation, now even the Arkansas school system outclasses it.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:25

And don't forget the California school system. It used to be considered the best in the nation, now even the Arkansas school system outclasses it.

The 'free' market hard at work.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:27

I tend to find the glorification of exploitation, injustice and economic tyranny to be generally distasteful. It seems the scum at the ABC however don't have a problem with it.

Your sense of 'humor' has obviously been distorted by capitalism into malice and classism.

Well done Andaras you have been able to get away from the crux of our little two-way here, I must admit I gave you the material for it.

Oh, get a sense of humour AP.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:30

Which is exactly my point. The post I quoted equated this with prohibition. No, for this to be like prohibition all junk food would have to be banned.

People are making a gigantic mountain over something that they wouldn't even notice happened if the media hadn't covered it. Just like the myriad of other laws that really don't affect the vast majority of us.

Edit: Hell, you can still get trans-fats in California provided they are prepackaged and labeled.

I think you have hit hit a very big problem with the world at the moment. And we can go further in saying that the people wouldn't make so big a deal with this law, if the media portrayed it in a good light, rather than being against it.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:33

Well done Andaras you have been able to get away from the crux of our little two-way here, I must admit I gave you the material for it.

Oh, get a sense of humour AP.

Maybe you should go and watch a video of a black man being lynched? That is it seems the kinda things you find 'humorous'.

Gauthier

26-07-2008, 05:35

Maybe you should go and watch a video of a black man being lynched? That is it seems the kinda things you find 'humorous'.

And if the black man was labelled a Bourgeois Proleteriat Oppressor in the video you'd be there watching and enjoying it too.

Snafturi

26-07-2008, 05:36

I think you have hit hit a very big problem with the world at the moment. And we can go further in saying that the people wouldn't make so big a deal with this law, if the media portrayed it in a good light, rather than being against it.

Oh, of course. If the media portrayed trans fats as the avian flu du jour, then people would be calling Arnold a saint. If the media talked about how lard really isn't that bad and is pretty dang tasty, then people would be running to the stores to buy their new lard-filled pastries.

And it's not just this story. Tomorrow we'll be told about the toxic cloud of toxins that are coming to a city near us and how we need to cleanse our colons lest we die. And people will freak out about that, while not even bothering to wonder about the pollutants in their soil that might be doing them harm. No, the nebulous cloud of toxins is on the way. Much scarier.

Thumbless Pete Crabbe

26-07-2008, 05:36

The 'free' market hard at work.

Hah. If the California Dept. of Education were a part of any free market, half its members would be fired in a week. That's half the problem right there.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:38

Oh, of course. If the media portrayed trans fats as the avian flu du jour, then people would be calling Arnold a saint. If the media talked about how lard really isn't that bad and is pretty dang tasty, then people would be running to the stores to buy their new lard-filled pastries.

And it's not just this story. Tomorrow we'll be told about the toxic cloud of toxins that are coming to a city near us and how we need to cleanse our colons lest we die. And people will freak out about that, while not even bothering to wonder about the pollutants in their soil that might be doing them harm. No, the nebulous cloud of toxins is on the way. Much scarier.

I couldn't agree more with you mate.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:39

And if the black man was labelled a Bourgeois Proleteriat Oppressor in the video you'd be there watching and enjoying it too.
It's called class warfare, get used to it. I would clap actually.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 05:39

Maybe you should go and watch a video of a black man being lynched? That is it seems the kinda things you find 'humorous'.

If it is brought forward as a form of satire then yes I might find it funny.

Anti-Social Darwinism

26-07-2008, 05:43

The 'free' market hard at work.

Ah, yes. The California school system, during the 50s and 60s, when the free market was doing well, was, indeed, the best in the country. As the proletarian intellectuals got more influence they decided to take something that wasn't broken and "fix" it. Now we reward students for being able to breathe and walk at the same time. Learning to read, do math, think? Why, if we did that, students might be able to think for themselves instead of parroting their professors. Maybe if we handed it back to the free market, it might be worth something.

Gauthier

26-07-2008, 05:56

It's called class warfare, get used to it. I would clap actually.

Ah, so if a black man is lynched for being black it's racist, but if he's lynched for being upper class then it's acceptable. Typical Stalinist double standard.

:rolleyes:

"All Animals Are Equal. But Some Are More Equal Than Others."

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 05:57

Not really, because it doesn't change the fact that part of the government's job is to inform and ban toxic man made substance from entering the food source/water supplies.

Uh...trans fats aren't toxic, but hey. My point was that the CA government passed the wrong law. Labeling is more important than banning when the things in question are only dangerous in immoderate quantities combined with a completely sedentary lifestyle.

Yeah, I hate those "western sources" you know that Ukranine family who moved to Australia in the early 90's to make a better life for themselves.

As for your second part it is exactly the reason why we should allow child labour back to stop these fat kids livving off the exploitation of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwvwWL5mkC0

Funny stuff.

Andaras

26-07-2008, 05:58

Ah, so if a black man is lynched for being black it's racist, but if he's lynched for being upper class then it's acceptable. Typical Stalinist double standard.

:rolleyes:

"All Animals Are Equal. But Some Are More Equal Than Others."

No, because race, just like nationality, is an artificial construct meant to divide the working class against each other. The only 'real' division is class, and on that basis alone discrimination and retribution based on social class is justified a hundred fold.

Intangelon

26-07-2008, 06:04

No, because race, just like nationality, is an artificial construct meant to divide the working class against each other. The only 'real' division is class, and on that basis alone discrimination and retribution based on social class is justified a hundred fold.

Okay. So were there any class divisions in any Marxist nation? What about race? Surely the south Asian SSRs weren't nearly as welcome in all of the USSR as ethnic Russians. It's really easy to make blanket generalizations about stuff that either never happened or happened only on paper.

Copiosa Scotia

26-07-2008, 06:14

Could a mod please go through this thread and delete all the posts by people who think obesity is the primary concern with trans fats?

New Malachite Square

26-07-2008, 06:17

So, just to clarify: Californians are absolutely mature, level-headed and responsible enough to own deadly weapons…

Well, I wouldn't say that.

…but apparently we can't be trusted to make our own choices about what goes in our bodies.

Makes sense.

Folean

26-07-2008, 06:28

Ah yes the government knows what to with yourself better than you do. Next come the assigned jobs, clothes, workplaces, reading, etc., etc...

Andaras

26-07-2008, 06:32

Ah yes the government knows what to with yourself better than you do. Next come the assigned jobs, clothes, workplaces, reading, etc., etc...
Your postulate is incorrect because you posit that people have a choice in such things, and that their ideas, beliefs, workplaces, clothes, jobs and reading aren't all just products on the prevailing economic environment which shapes them and controls them.

The Alma Mater

26-07-2008, 06:40

So, just to clarify: Californians are absolutely mature, level-headed and responsible enough to own deadly weapons, but apparently we can't be trusted to make our own choices about what goes in our bodies.

While you no doubt meant that to be sarcastic - has it ever occured to you that it may actually be true ? That a gun is dangerous is easy to grasp. That that delicious burger will cause danger to you in 10 years may be understood intellectually - but that does not mean one truly gets the message.

Of course, if the government has to play "daddy knows what's good for you" is another question. Even if they really know better.

New Malachite Square

26-07-2008, 06:41

Ah yes the government knows what to with yourself better than you do. Next come the assigned jobs, clothes, workplaces, reading, etc., etc...

Listen to your Big Brother, dear, he's older than you.

FreedomEverlasting

26-07-2008, 11:23

Uh...trans fats aren't toxic, but hey. My point was that the CA government passed the wrong law. Labeling is more important than banning when the things in question are only dangerous in immoderate quantities combined with a completely sedentary lifestyle.

Maybe if you actually READ my first post rather than just bold the last sentence as a mean to justify your stand, you wouldn't have made that silly comment.

So here I am repeating myself one more time.

Sedentary lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with trans fat since it cannot be burn as energy to begin with. So no matter how much exercise you do it will not burn a single gram of your stored trans fat. And although I am not quite sure how many grams of trans fat per day do you consider immoderate quantities, FDA advisor Dr. Carlos Camargo is afraid that even the current standards of below 0.5g per serving is too high to be label as trans fat free. This is because by eating a few serving of those "0 trans fat" products, we would already exceed the recommended level.

Besides, many manufacturers and large fast food chains are already phasing out trans fat world wide. Also many parts of the world are beginning to ban this product as well. It not like the Food and Health administration down in California is the only ones who is taking trans fat seriously.

If you still don't think trans fat is toxic enough I am sure you can write to your congressmen about it.

Edit: Ok maybe I am being a little extreme there. It is technically possible to burn trans fat in your body. It's just that it takes more energy to burn it than the actual energy release. Your body is just not gear to use something like that so it does tend to say in your body for a really long time.

Blouman Empire

26-07-2008, 13:14

Funny stuff.

Uh??? As I said it is meant to be taken as satire rather than as what someone may really believe.

I am assuming that you mean "funny stuff" in a sarcastic manner.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 16:53

:rolleyes:

I'm sure you knew what he meant.

Regardless, this ban is not going to make people lose weight or make them healthier, especially as people continue to sit on their fat arses all day in front of a computer posting on NSG.

Actually, it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier.

So - what of your position now?

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 19:03

Actually, it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier.

So - what of your position now?
Ban everything that's unhealthy! Government regulated diets ONLY! Little salt, no snacks, no chips, no cookies, hell, no ANYTHING! Just good, clean wholesome government produced food, with 100% of vitamins and minerals needed, with almost no taste! Mmmm....

Yootopia

26-07-2008, 20:06

Ah yes the government knows what to with yourself better than you do.
Sometimes. This is one of those times. Heart attacks are nobody's friend. They drive up healthcare costs, and trans fats make them far more likely to come early.

Heart attacks at 75 - sad
Heart attacks at 45 - sad, also takes people out of the workforce 20 years early.
Next come the assigned jobs, clothes, workplaces, reading, etc., etc...
Yeah, or maybe that's just retarded...

Yootopia

26-07-2008, 20:10

Ban everything that's unhealthy! Government regulated diets ONLY! Little salt, no snacks, no chips, no cookies, hell, no ANYTHING! Just good, clean wholesome government produced food, with 100% of vitamins and minerals needed, with almost no taste! Mmmm....
Uhu... trans fats don't actually have any taste value. They are used because they're a cheap, mainly accidental byproduct of hydrogenation...

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 20:14

Sometimes. This is one of those times.

Government doesn't need to be in control of what people consume.
Heart attacks are nobody's friend. They drive up healthcare costs, and trans fats make them far more likely to come early.
So does too little exercise. Does this mean forced workouts?

Heart attacks at 75 - sad
Heart attacks at 45 - sad, also takes people out of the workforce 20 years early.
Car crashes at 45- sad, also takes people out of the workforce 20 years early. Ban cars.

Yeah, or maybe that's just retarded...
Which is why we don't want to allow the government to do that.;)

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 20:17

Uhu... trans fats don't actually have any taste value. They are used because they're a cheap, mainly accidental byproduct of hydrogenation...

Grave_n_idle said the reason they were banned was because they were unhealthy and made people fat. If you one thing that does that, and not the others, you're a hypocrite. If you ban all of them, what will be left? Everything has the potential to make people fat, and many things are unhealthy (Potato chips and cookies for two), yet they haven't banned them. Let people consume what they want, whether it has taste or not.

Yootopia

26-07-2008, 20:19

Government doesn't need to be in control of what people consume.
Sometimes it helps, though.
So does too little exercise. Does this mean forced workouts?
I don't see why it should mean forced workouts. Promote not being a fatarse and driving everywhere if possible, yes. Forced workouts? No.
Car crashes at 45- sad, also takes people out of the workforce 20 years early. Ban cars.
Cars have a genuine utility to society. Trans fats don't.
Which is why we don't want to allow the government to do that.;)
... any signs of that happening in the near future?

Yootopia

26-07-2008, 20:22

Grave_n_idle said the reason they were banned was because they were unhealthy and made people fat.
Yeah, Grave_n_idle doesn't know what he's on about.

Trans fats are not a problem because they make people obese, they are a problem because they raise 'bad' cholesterol and lower the levels of 'good' cholesterol, which leads to heart attacks.

You'd have trouble taking trans fats out of peoples' diets completely (it's present in a very limited quantity in some beef cuts, for example), but reducing intake would certainly be useful.

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 20:24

Yeah, Grave_n_idle doesn't know what he's on about.

Trans fats are not a problem because they make people obese, they are a problem because they raise 'bad' cholesterol and lower the levels of 'good' cholesterol, which leads to heart attacks.

You'd have trouble taking trans fats out of peoples' diets completely (it's present in a very limited quantity in some beef cuts, for example), but reducing intake would certainly be useful.
Isn't there any other way than banning them from restaurants? Force them to put a sign on the door of the place talking about the danger of trans fats, or whatnot? It'd seem a bit more sensible to me.

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 20:27

Sometimes it helps,the government to butt into our lives yet another time for a minor problem though.

Fixed.

I don't see why it should mean forced workouts. Promote not being a fatarse and driving everywhere if possible, yes. Forced workouts? No.

Exactly. Promote NOT eating foods with large amounts of trans fats, not banning them.

Cars have a genuine utility to society. Trans fats don't.

True.

... any signs of that happening in the near future?
*Checks "1984" watch* In exactly Negative Twenty-four years.:tongue:

United Dependencies

26-07-2008, 20:53

I think that it was a good idea to ban trans fat. Some people don't have the money or the time to eat home cooked meals every day. It really isn't fair that they should get unhealthy meals. On the other hand it's not fair to punish companies simply because some people are two lazy to look into what exactly they're eating.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:29

Yeah, Grave_n_idle doesn't know what he's on about.

Trans fats are not a problem because they make people obese, they are a problem because they raise 'bad' cholesterol and lower the levels of 'good' cholesterol, which leads to heart attacks.

You'd have trouble taking trans fats out of peoples' diets completely (it's present in a very limited quantity in some beef cuts, for example), but reducing intake would certainly be useful.

First - let me just point out that - if you are too lazy to read my posts, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pile on when someone talks about what I 'said'.

Second - I didn't say what Conservative Morality said.

Third - I do know what I'm talking about.

Lunatic Goofballs

26-07-2008, 21:30

Third - I do know what I'm talking about.

It never stopped me. :cool:

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:31

Isn't there any other way than banning them from restaurants? Force them to put a sign on the door of the place talking about the danger of trans fats, or whatnot? It'd seem a bit more sensible to me.

It eventually comes down to 'how big is your door'.

And, of course - when the door is full of things, which ones do you read. ALl of them? It'll take you a week to get TO ordering...

We could put a sign on the door about the dangers of broken glass, too - and.. human fingers. Then we don't have to worry about whether there are any of those things in the food...

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:32

It never stopped me. :cool:

I wasn't claiming it as an advantage - just pointing out that they were batting oh-for-three. :)

Lunatic Goofballs

26-07-2008, 21:36

I wasn't claiming it as an advantage - just pointing out that they were batting oh-for-three. :)

I have found that meandering aimlessly has been very advantageous to me. :)

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 21:36

It eventually comes down to 'how big is your door'.

And, of course - when the door is full of things, which ones do you read. ALl of them? It'll take you a week to get TO ordering...

We could put a sign on the door about the dangers of broken glass, too - and.. human fingers. Then we don't have to worry about whether there are any of those things in the food...
Neither of those are intentionally put in. They arise from accidents. And, of course, you resort to "How big is your door". Well I can honestly say that I've yet to miss the big red "No Smoking" signs on the doors at all of the restaurants I've went to, so why not "Products may contain trans fats" in similarly sized letters, and then smaller print saying which foods do and do not contain trans fats, along with exact dangers, hmm?

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:36

Grave_n_idle said the reason they were banned was because they were unhealthy and made people fat.

Really? I think you should find the post where I said that.

If you one thing that does that, and not the others, you're a hypocrite.

If you ban one thing that's bad for you (like... say, lead in gas?) and not everything else that's bad for you, that's hypocrisy?

That's a bit of a hard line to take.

I don't think parents should give their children cocaine, but I'm less worried about them giving them coca cola...

Hypocrisy??

Maybe... but I can live with that kind of hypocrisy.

If you ban all of them, what will be left?

Healthy stuff?

Everything has the potential to make people fat, and many things are unhealthy (Potato chips and cookies for two), yet they haven't banned them. Let people consume what they want, whether it has taste or not.

Not worth dignifying with a response.

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 21:37

First - let me just point out that - if you are too lazy to read my posts, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pile on when someone talks about what I 'said'.

Second - I didn't say what Conservative Morality said.

Yes you did:
Actually, it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier.

So - what of your position now?
Third - I do know what I'm talking about.
Obviously not.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:38

Neither of those are intentionally put in. They arise from accidents. And, of course, you resort to "How big is your door". Well I can honestly say that I've yet to miss the big red "No Smoking" signs on the doors at all of the restaurants I've went to, so why not "Products may contain trans fats" in similarly sized letters, and then smaller print saying which foods do and do not contain trans fats, along with exact dangers, hmm?

Because, of course, those are the only two things that could be bad for you, so the rest of the door will be empty.

Fassitude

26-07-2008, 21:39

Schwarzenegger signs law banning trans fats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_bi_ge/california_trans_fats)

Good, but of course will have no effect in the USA because of their obesity.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 21:41

Yes you did:

Obviously not.

Hard of thinking?

Where does this:

"it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier".

equate to:

"they were banned was because they were unhealthy and made people fat".

Answer - the one is not the same as the other, yet you claim the second as being what I said. Which it isn't. And rather than apologising (which you should be doing now), you're arguing about it.

Conserative Morality

26-07-2008, 21:43

Really? I think you should find the post where I said that.

Actually, it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier.

So - what of your position now?

If you ban one thing that's bad for you (like... say, lead in gas?) and not everything else that's bad for you, that's hypocrisy?

That's a bit of a hard line to take.

No. If you ban lead in Alcohol, but not in salad (bear with me here, it's an example), that would be hypocrisy, which is similar in principle to what they're doing in California.
I don't think parents should give their children cocaine, but I'm less worried about them giving them coca cola...

Hypocrisy??

Maybe... but I can live with that kind of hypocrisy.

Coca-Cola has Cocaine in it.
After 1904, Coca Cola started using, instead of fresh leaves, "spent" leaves - the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with cocaine trace levels left over at a molecular level.[23][24] To this day, Coca Cola uses as an ingredient a cocaine free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.

Healthy stuff?

Not even that. Near anything has a potential to be abused, and almost all foods can make you fat, or can be unhealthy for you when consumed in large amounts.

Not worth dignifying with a response.
It was an example.

Grave_n_idle

26-07-2008, 23:30

No. If you ban lead in Alcohol, but not in salad (bear with me here, it's an example), that would be hypocrisy, which is similar in principle to what they're doing in California.

No, they're not.

If that principle applied, we would be seeing a ban on trans-fats on... say... hamburgers, but not on hotdogs.

Coca-Cola has Cocaine in it.

So, first you mis-read me (which you still haven't admitted to, corrected, or apologised for)...

And now you apparently don't even read your OWN sources? (Since the one you presented says you're wrong).

Let me embolden the important part:

"To this day, Coca Cola uses as an ingredient a cocaine free coca leaf extract..."

Not even that. Near anything has a potential to be abused, and almost all foods can make you fat, or can be unhealthy for you when consumed in large amounts.

Which is irrelevent, right?

Trostia

27-07-2008, 00:06

Cars have a genuine utility to society.

Which utility would that be again?

Killing 30,000 people per year (in the US) due to emissions, or killing about 40,000 per year in fatal accidents?

I know, the genuine utility must be in generating high demand for oil which inspires a charming cycle of war, conflict and political corruption. Good for society.

Orrrrrr perhaps the social utility is in letting Bob and Jane be able to drive everywhere. That way they don't have to exercise, and so when Bob and Jane get health problems they can blame the nasty mean trans fat given to them by nasty mean corporations instead of their fat-ass car-worship lifestyle. That's gotta be it.

Deranged Robots

27-07-2008, 00:14

Laws are made to prevent stupid people from harming themselves. Intelligent people should be exempt.

FreedomEverlasting

27-07-2008, 00:27

Isn't there any other way than banning them from restaurants? Force them to put a sign on the door of the place talking about the danger of trans fats, or whatnot? It'd seem a bit more sensible to me.

Do you even know what trans fat banning means?

The US allow anything below 0.5 g of trans fat per serving be labeled as trans fat free. the FDA recommend level of trans fat consumption is no more than 2 g a day. By consuming "trans fat free" food in a restaurant, you are still running the risk of exceeding your recommended level because they can use anything label "trans fat free", which can include multiple servings of anything containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.

If we can restrict sodium benzoate, sodium nitrite, propyl gallate, and pretty much every single other perservatives to a safe level, why can't we restrict partially hydrogenated vegetable oil as well? It's a preservative just like anything else, and as far as I can tell this ban is already run under a very high tolerance level. I don't see why anyone is making a big fuzz about it aside from the fact that trans fat has the word "fat" in it, which our culture like to scapegoat and blame.

Blouman Empire

27-07-2008, 03:41

Coca-Cola had Cocaine in it.

Fixed.

The amusing thing is that Coca-Cola also had wine in it as well and the wine was the first thing banned from the mixture.

Blouman Empire

27-07-2008, 03:46

Actually, it could help people lose weight AND make them healthier.

So - what of your position now?

The key word is could a lot of things could do this, that or the other, but I am saying that it won't.

Moving the Australian Grand Prix from Albert Part to Flemington could increase attendances but the fact of the matter is that it won't increase attendances.

What you are using is a weasel word, which is a word which describes what might happen but doesn't bear any responsibility if it doesn't. And politicians who like playing the tabloids will hear words such as could and helps and thinks yes we will do this because it will make people think we are doing something even if what they are doing is not going to do anything useful.

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 03:58

The key word is could a lot of things could do this, that or the other, but I am saying that it won't.

Moving the Australian Grand Prix from Albert Part to Flemington could increase attendances but the fact of the matter is that it won't increase attendances.

What you are using is a weasel word, which is a word which describes what might happen but doesn't bear any responsibility if it doesn't. And politicians who like playing the tabloids will hear words such as could and helps and thinks yes we will do this because it will make people think we are doing something even if what they are doing is not going to do anything useful.

No, I'm not using a weasel word, I think you missed the point.

You claimed that you didn't support the action (fair enough), and your reason was given that - as an ABSOLUTE - it wouldn't make people healthier, or help them lose weight.

First - as an absolute, you should EXPECT to get taken to task - since the use of absolutes is always a bad idea.

But, more importantly:

Second - trans fats are being linked to the formation of 'plastic' fat cells (as are certain packaging ingredients), that do not break down like conventional fat cells, don't take up material like normal fat cells, and that actually derail the standard fat-cell process.

So, banning trans fat COULD lead to reduction of those intransient fat cells (which would help people lose weight), it could certainly help slow/stop formation of MORE of them. And - since those intransient fat cells aren't functional, they actually add mass without adding advantage - simply reducing that mass could easily help improve the health of the population.

So - your answer was based on an absolute, and NEEDED to be questioned, just for that. But, it was also based on a bullshit excuse, so it needed to be quetioned on THAT, too.

Blouman Empire

27-07-2008, 04:13

No, I'm not using a weasel word, I think you missed the point.

You claimed that you didn't support the action (fair enough), and your reason was given that - as an ABSOLUTE - it wouldn't make people healthier, or help them lose weight.

First - as an absolute, you should EXPECT to get taken to task - since the use of absolutes is always a bad idea.

But, more importantly:

Second - trans fats are being linked to the formation of 'plastic' fat cells (as are certain packaging ingredients), that do not break down like conventional fat cells, don't take up material like normal fat cells, and that actually derail the standard fat-cell process.

So, banning trans fat COULD lead to reduction of those intransient fat cells (which would help people lose weight), it could certainly help slow/stop formation of MORE of them. And - since those intransient fat cells aren't functional, they actually add mass without adding advantage - simply reducing that mass could easily help improve the health of the population.

So - your answer was based on an absolute, and NEEDED to be questioned, just for that. But, it was also based on a bullshit excuse, so it needed to be quetioned on THAT, too.

There you are using the could word again, it might also not do any of these things either, so what we should be doing is looking for something that will help people lose weight and make them healthy, not just doing any old thing that has a chance of making people lose weight, because it might also have a chance of people not losing weight especially as there are many other factors that contribute a lot more to high weight levels and health problems.

Also what was this bullshit excuse? The fact that Scharwznegger is playing tabloid politics or that people will continue to live a poor lifestyle even with these taken out of their diets?

Kyronea

27-07-2008, 04:38

Schwarzenegger signs law banning trans fats (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_bi_ge/california_trans_fats)

So, just to clarify: Californians are absolutely mature, level-headed and responsible enough to own deadly weapons, but apparently we can't be trusted to make our own choices about what goes in our bodies.

What do you say, fellow Californians, U.S. Americans and NSGers? Will we see trans fats outlawed in the U.S. in our lifetime? How about in Britain? What about the rest of the west?

Ridiculous.

As much as I praise the idea of ENCOURAGING better health, you don't do it by banning certain types of foods or certain fats or anything.

Besides, wouldn't this completely kill about 75% of California's food industry? Most of it's fast food anyway.

FreedomEverlasting

27-07-2008, 05:01

Ridiculous.

As much as I praise the idea of ENCOURAGING better health, you don't do it by banning certain types of foods or certain fats or anything.

Besides, wouldn't this completely kill about 75% of California's food industry? Most of it's fast food anyway.

Tired of explaining how trans fat is a man made preservative and not just "some types of food". Or that Trans Fat Free under the law just means using anything with less than 0.5g Trans Fat per serving.

Under that logic you might as well go complain about limiting Sodium Benzoate as well.

Kyronea

27-07-2008, 05:03

Tired of explaining how trans fat is a man made preservative and not just "some types of food". Or that Trans Fat Free under the law just means using anything with less than 0.5g Trans Fat per serving.

Under that logic you might as well go complain about limiting Sodium Benzoate as well.

It's an artificial preservative? Really?

FreedomEverlasting

27-07-2008, 05:17

I think I am just going to quote wikipedia.

Trans fat is the common name for a type of unsaturated fat with trans- isomer fatty acid(s). Trans fats may be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated.

Most trans fats consumed today are created industrially in partial hydrogenation of plant oils — a process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911. The goal of partial hydrogenation is to add hydrogen atoms to cis-unsaturated fats, making them more saturated. These saturated fats have a higher melting point, which makes them attractive for baking and extends their shelf-life. However, the catalyst also catalyses a side reaction that isomerizes some of the cis-unsaturated fats into trans-unsaturated fats instead of hydrogenating them completely. Another particular class of trans fats, vaccenic acid, occurs naturally in trace amounts in meat and dairy products from ruminants.

Unlike other dietary fats, trans fats are neither essential nor salubrious[1] and, in fact, the consumption of trans fats increases one's risk of coronary heart disease[2] by raising levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol and lowering levels of "good" HDL cholesterol. [3] Health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are more deleterious than naturally occurring oils.[4]

---------------------------------------------

On July 11, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation requiring manufacturers to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods and some dietary supplements.[74][75] The new labeling rule became mandatory across the board, even for companies that petitioned for extensions, on January 1, 2008. However, unlike many other countries trans fat levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving can be listed as 0 grams trans fat on the food label.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

Kyronea

27-07-2008, 06:42

Oh, I see.

In that case, ban all you like. Artificial preservatives are nothing but trouble, nutritionally speaking.

Blouman Empire

27-07-2008, 07:01

Oh, I see.

In that case, ban all you like. Artificial preservatives are nothing but trouble, nutritionally speaking.

While I know that this is different to the original reasons given for the ban, to ban something because it is an artificial preservative is a poor precedent, after all there is already a lot of things in foods that are artificial and would certainly mean many companies would have to change recopies and some foods would not last anywhere near as long.

I would prefer it if the government allowed people to decide on what they would rather buy and not buy in regards to what artificial substances have been used. There are many artificial items which are placed in various foods, do I go on a rampage and demand that the government ban it? Of course not it is stupid, what I do is not buy those products and buy others which do not contain these products, I prefer fresh food anyway to preserved foods, apart from those such as Jam and some sauces.

If enough people stop using companies’ products because of what is in it, they will stop using it and/or another company will release a product that doesn't contain this.

New Malachite Square

27-07-2008, 07:07

If enough people stop using companies’ products because of what is in it, they will stop using it and/or another company will release a product that doesn't contain this.

I'm surprised California needed to ban trans fats at all. I'm not aware of any ban in Ontario, but virtually nothing contains trans fats here anymore. It's become good PR to take them out.

Indri

27-07-2008, 08:36

It won't be long now. Soon the food police will be standing on every corner with a tazer hooked up to a car battery shoving a cup of water and stale crackers at passers-by telling us "You'll eat it and you'd damn well better like it or else." and on that day no one will be able to deny how far we've fallen.

FreedomEverlasting

27-07-2008, 08:40

I would prefer it if the government allowed people to decide on what they would rather buy and not buy in regards to what artificial substances have been used. There are many artificial items which are placed in various foods, do I go on a rampage and demand that the government ban it? Of course not it is stupid, what I do is not buy those products and buy others which do not contain these products, I prefer fresh food anyway to preserved foods, apart from those such as Jam and some sauces.

Actually we do regulate just about every single artificial substances out there. And if you think this ban = taking out trans fat entirely, just look at my last post. All it means was that ingredients cannot exceed 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving. It is still freely use on many things that is labeled as trans fat free. This is how items that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oil on the ingredient list can still be labeled as trans fat free.

There's a big difference between "not being allow to use preservative entirely", versus "restricting a given preservative to a safe level". Although I must admit that the government even calling this a ban is a stupid idea.

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 11:22

Didn't we try this one with beer and the like? And didn't it make people drink even more? We never learn do we?

When they outlaw meat, I'm totally going to become a cheeseburger baron.

And what, we're going to see some kind of fat-related-speak-easy (speak-greasy?) springing up?

I don't think it's quite the same ballpark.

*strikes Grave_n_idle off the list of future competition*

How many people know that American food companies use ingredients that have been highlighted in Europe as causing attention deficit disorder?

Oh, please don't use that one. That research is so young and full of holes, it's embarrassing.

In other news: we (Californians) spend 8 billion (yeah, Billion) dollars a year on prisons which are the disgrace of the entire nation. They're a joke among jokes - a, $8 billion punchline. No one can match our failure rate, and it's only getting worse.

But yeah, trans fats are bad. Good job, Arnold.

Hey, don't forget our schools also spend the least amount of money per student than any other state. Good thing we found a few extra billion to cut out of education this year.

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 11:38

So really, people are breaking out their pitchforks because they can't get their crappy tasting junk food.

I, for one, am not pissed off that I can't eat my "crappy tasting junk food". I'm pissed off because the government increasingly moves toward bans and paranoia and away from free choice. And they do it at the whim of popular opinion. If the main concern was health, cigarettes would have been banned before any of us were born. Alcohol would be banned. Caffeine would be banned. But banning those things would cripple our society, so they ignore them and find something trendy so they can say they did something and now we're all much safer, thanks.

It's not a matter of choice. In socialist societies everything was ordered clean, uniform, directed. Capitalist society is dirty, crime-ridden and full of the distortions of drugs, overweight and other social ills.

This is a new standard in excellence for AP rhetoric against which every subsequent insane comment will be measured.

And don't forget the California school system. It used to be considered the best in the nation, now even the Arkansas school system outclasses it.

Oooh, burn on Arkansas!

But more burn on us. :(

Could a mod please go through this thread and delete all the posts by people who think obesity is the primary concern with trans fats?

Next ban: People who have different opinions and news sources.

Your postulate is incorrect because you posit that people have a choice in such things, and that their ideas, beliefs, workplaces, clothes, jobs and reading aren't all just products on the prevailing economic environment which shapes them and controls them.

Including yours, right?

While you no doubt meant that to be sarcastic - has it ever occured to you that it may actually be true ? That a gun is dangerous is easy to grasp. That that delicious burger will cause danger to you in 10 years may be understood intellectually - but that does not mean one truly gets the message.

Of course, if the government has to play "daddy knows what's good for you" is another question. Even if they really know better.

Well, I don't even think we're actually responsible enough to have guns, so I kind of out-sarcasmed myself there...

I do understand that, and it's a good point. But at the same time, that power can and has been abused to sponsor those unhealthy products that prop up the economy (cigarettes) and demonize those that don't (marijuana). If the government is going to regulate what we can put into our bodies--and I don't think it should--science and medicine should be the basis of those decisions.

Sovereign California

27-07-2008, 11:38

ban Fat People. Its Much More Direct.how Would You Enforce That? Genocide?

YES! Captain Ahab style too!!! :sniper: Could you imagine it? Drive-by harpooning! :tongue:

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 11:46

Besides, wouldn't this completely kill about 75% of California's food industry? Most of it's fast food anyway.

Dude. Seriously? You're gonna go there? Have you been to California?

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 18:03

There you are using the could word again, it might also not do any of these things either, so what we should be doing is looking for something that will help people lose weight and make them healthy, not just doing any old thing that has a chance of making people lose weight, because it might also have a chance of people not losing weight especially as there are many other factors that contribute a lot more to high weight levels and health problems.

Also what was this bullshit excuse? The fact that Scharwznegger is playing tabloid politics or that people will continue to live a poor lifestyle even with these taken out of their diets?

How'd you manage to miss all the salient points?

I have to assume it was deliberate, so that you didn't have to do anything unpleasant, like accept that maybe you were wrong.

There are no silver bullets that will make us all healthier and less fat. You're promising something more pie-in-the-sky than what you CALL weasal-words.

But, reducing the specific components of diet that reduce ability to properly form, utilise or remove fatcells (while not guaranteed) seems strongly likely to have some positive effects.

You say there are "many other factors that contribute a lot more to high weight levels and health problems", but in this particular case, given the specific threat, you have to admit, maybe there aint'.

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 18:08

While I know that this is different to the original reasons given for the ban, to ban something because it is an artificial preservative is a poor precedent, after all there is already a lot of things in foods that are artificial and would certainly mean many companies would have to change recopies and some foods would not last anywhere near as long.

I would prefer it if the government allowed people to decide on what they would rather buy and not buy in regards to what artificial substances have been used. There are many artificial items which are placed in various foods, do I go on a rampage and demand that the government ban it? Of course not it is stupid, what I do is not buy those products and buy others which do not contain these products, I prefer fresh food anyway to preserved foods, apart from those such as Jam and some sauces.

If enough people stop using companies’ products because of what is in it, they will stop using it and/or another company will release a product that doesn't contain this.

If only real-life worked like the cute theories.

In REAL life, the fact that half the shit you can buy to put into your food comes in barrels of scoopable powder, and is made of something as appealing as waste oil or chicken bones, means you can unfairly undercut wholefoods.

Which means poor people buy your product, because weak food is better than no food.

The usual market forces then, don't apply. Whole foods never get any cheaper, because they are able to assume a position in the luxury market - and poor people continue to buy the crap, even when they KNOW it's bad for them, because boycotting cheap food basically means boycotting food.

Market forces CAN'T fix this problem, as it is.

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 18:10

Oh, please don't use that one. That research is so young and full of holes, it's embarrassing.

In what way? That was ten-years-old, easy - before I came to America... and that's probably close to a decade now.

Katganistan

27-07-2008, 21:43

Kyronea

27-07-2008, 21:44

Dude. Seriously? You're gonna go there? Have you been to California?

Seeing as how I lived in Oxnard, California for two years, yes.

All I ever saw were fast food restaurants and the OCCASIONAL decent place to eat.

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 22:22

In what way? That was ten-years-old, easy - before I came to America... and that's probably close to a decade now.

Because all the studies I've ever seen (and I admit there probably tons out there I haven't) have pretty much gone the same route as early aspartame studies: feed 5 tons of something to a rat and see if it goes crazy (this is a simplification, of course). Then the data is used to make a causal link where the evidence doesn't support it (at least yet).

Many of the studies I've seen also link preservatives to ADHD and a decrease in intelligence, which contradicts most studies of ADHD which says that afflicted children are of average or above average intelligence.

Seeing as how I lived in Oxnard, California for two years, yes.

All I ever saw were fast food restaurants and the OCCASIONAL decent place to eat.

Oh, Oxnard. That's... okay, I've never been to Oxnard, but I've driven through it. It was hot.

Anyway! My city actually has an appalling lack of good restaurants considering we're midway between S.F. and Silicon Valley, but Berkeley, Oakland, the City, Santa Cruz, all have amazing restaurants. Great Mexican, great sushi--Ethiopian, Nepalese, etc etc. Lots of good Indian restaurants.

Intangelon

27-07-2008, 22:27

Uh??? As I said it is meant to be taken as satire rather than as what someone may really believe.

I am assuming that you mean "funny stuff" in a sarcastic manner.

Absolutely not. Child labor, while abhorrent, would certainly help stem the tide of childhood obesity. The other video about the kid being too tired to go out with friends and get into trouble also has merit. I found the presentation humorous and the concept intriguing, so I said "funny stuff".

I have no idea why you'd be offended at that reaction. Some ideas are drastic and unpopular, even if they might solve a few problems. That doesn't mean I or anyone else who laughs at the ads are advocating child labor. We laugh because we have senses of humor. Go figure.

Maybe if you actually READ my first post rather than just bold the last sentence as a mean to justify your stand, you wouldn't have made that silly comment.

So here I am repeating myself one more time.

Sedentary lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with trans fat since it cannot be burn as energy to begin with. So no matter how much exercise you do it will not burn a single gram of your stored trans fat. And although I am not quite sure how many grams of trans fat per day do you consider immoderate quantities, FDA advisor Dr. Carlos Camargo is afraid that even the current standards of below 0.5g per serving is too high to be label as trans fat free. This is because by eating a few serving of those "0 trans fat" products, we would already exceed the recommended level.

Besides, many manufacturers and large fast food chains are already phasing out trans fat world wide. Also many parts of the world are beginning to ban this product as well. It not like the Food and Health administration down in California is the only ones who is taking trans fat seriously.

If you still don't think trans fat is toxic enough I am sure you can write to your congressmen about it.

Edit: Ok maybe I am being a little extreme there. It is technically possible to burn trans fat in your body. It's just that it takes more energy to burn it than the actual energy release. Your body is just not gear to use something like that so it does tend to say in your body for a really long time.

Perhaps if you'd made yourself this clear the first time, I'd not have made any statement, silly or otherwise.

If only real-life worked like the cute theories.

In REAL life, the fact that half the shit you can buy to put into your food comes in barrels of scoopable powder, and is made of something as appealing as waste oil or chicken bones, means you can unfairly undercut wholefoods.

Which means poor people buy your product, because weak food is better than no food.

The usual market forces then, don't apply. Whole foods never get any cheaper, because they are able to assume a position in the luxury market - and poor people continue to buy the crap, even when they KNOW it's bad for them, because boycotting cheap food basically means boycotting food.

Market forces CAN'T fix this problem, as it is.

Game, set and match, Grave_n_idle.

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 22:33

Game, set and match, Grave_n_idle.

I'd like to take credit, but that would be like accepting a medal for pointing out that the moon is a glowy thing in the night.

Certain things just can't be fixed by 'market forces' - food, for example - or healthcare. Energy production to a certain extent.

Products or services where the trade commodity is essential, more importantly - constantly essential - just can't be regulated by concepts like product boycotting, or free market price wars. Not beyond a superficial level.

Intangelon

27-07-2008, 22:37

I'd like to take credit, but that would be like accepting a medal for pointing out that the moon is a glowy thing in the night.

Certain things just can't be fixed by 'market forces' - food, for example - or healthcare. Energy production to a certain extent.

Products or services where the trade commodity is essential, more importantly - constantly essential - just can't be regulated by concepts like product boycotting, or free market price wars. Not beyond a superficial level.

Well, I hate to say it, but some people obviously don't know the moon when they see it. Either that or they look right at it and say "that's not the moon".

So I repeat my thanks. :hail:

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 22:40

Because all the studies I've ever seen (and I admit there probably tons out there I haven't) have pretty much gone the same route as early aspartame studies: feed 5 tons of something to a rat and see if it goes crazy (this is a simplification, of course).

Always a flawed test with rats, anyway - since they can't vomit.

But you're right, this is a gross oversimpliification.

Then the data is used to make a causal link where the evidence doesn't support it (at least yet).

Like the way Americans market the corrobration of drinking milk with a healthy diet, as though milk caused things like weight loss? Yeah - I hate 'bad science', too - especially as it's used in food.

That's the FDA for you. Most European nations won't let you get away with that kind of japery.

The problem with the American system is - that information IS out there (and European governments and companies were acting on it a decade ago, or more). But the FDA refuses to accept the causal link from Euro studies - and why would they when the FDA is in the pocket of the industry?

Many of the studies I've seen also link preservatives to ADHD and a decrease in intelligence, which contradicts most studies of ADHD which says that afflicted children are of average or above average intelligence.

Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions, you know?

Grave_n_idle

27-07-2008, 22:41

Well, I hate to say it, but some people obviously don't know the moon when they see it. Either that or they look right at it and say "that's not the moon".

So I repeat my thanks. :hail:

Aw shucks :)

Anti-Social Darwinism

27-07-2008, 23:28

Seeing as how I lived in Oxnard, California for two years, yes.

All I ever saw were fast food restaurants and the OCCASIONAL decent place to eat.

You would think, wouldn't you, with the level of snobbism present in Californians, that there would be more good places to eat.

Strangely, when I lived in California, all I ever saw were chains and franchises. To find an independent, non-franchise, non-chain restaurant of any quality was virtually impossible.

Kirav

27-07-2008, 23:35

As a Libertarian and former Californian, I am not happy that my state of birth is making the mistake of telling its citizens what they can and can't eat.

Andaras

27-07-2008, 23:41

As a Libertarian and former Californian, I am not happy that my state of birth is making the mistake of telling its citizens what they can and can't eat.
Liberty: Where you can defy the evil government, get fat and fly through your windshield at 100kms an hour.

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 23:46

Liberty: Where you can defy the evil government, get fat and fly through your windshield at 100kms an hour.

We fly through ours at 100 mph, thank you!

Ryadn

27-07-2008, 23:47

You would think, wouldn't you, with the level of snobbism present in Californians, that there would be more good places to eat.

Strangely, when I lived in California, all I ever saw were chains and franchises. To find an independent, non-franchise, non-chain restaurant of any quality was virtually impossible.

I find that really bizarre! There are tons of wonderful restaurants all over the Bay Area. Did you live here a long time ago? Was there some sort of restaurant revival?

Intangelon

27-07-2008, 23:48

You would think, wouldn't you, with the level of snobbism present in Californians, that there would be more good places to eat.

Strangely, when I lived in California, all I ever saw were chains and franchises. To find an independent, non-franchise, non-chain restaurant of any quality was virtually impossible.

Like anywhere else, this depends on where you lived and where you looked for establishments.

Intangelon

27-07-2008, 23:48

I find that really bizarre! There are tons of wonderful restaurants all over the Bay Area. Did you live here a long time ago? Was there some sort of restaurant revival?

Like I said, it depends on where in CA he was (even which part of what city) and where he looked for restaurants.

Andaras

27-07-2008, 23:52

We fly through ours at 100 mph, thank you!
Yeah you also drive on the wrong side of the road, but I won't nitpick.

Sovereign California

28-07-2008, 00:18

ban Fat People. Its Much More Direct.how Would You Enforce That? Genocide?

YES! Captain Ahab style too!!! :sniper: Could you imagine it? Drive-by harpooning! :tongue:

LOL ok... Wait, Wait, Wait!!! XD

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e391/HotblackD/klingonsg.gif

Anti-Social Darwinism

28-07-2008, 00:45

I find that really bizarre! There are tons of wonderful restaurants all over the Bay Area. Did you live here a long time ago? Was there some sort of restaurant revival?

I moved from California about 1 1/2 years ago. I lived in Southern California, the Riverside/San Bernardino area (I hate calling it the "Inland Empire" since it's such a sucky place). While some of the chains were ok (California Pizza Kitchen, Mimi's and the like) there were no good independents in the area - that I could find.

The times that I visited the Bay Area (my sister lived in Fremont), the restaurants were wonderful. I have to say, though, that I think Northern California and Southern California should be separate states.

Saint Jade IV

28-07-2008, 01:10

Andaras

28-07-2008, 01:28

I think this is ridiculous. Unfortunately, this kind of authoritarianism and Nanny State behaviour will be coming to Australia, thanks to wanker food lobbyists. We've already had the alcopops tax and now the AMA and various other lobbyists are campaigning for massive taxes on fatty foods.
I just had a really good idea, if we say made a law saying you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you didn't want to, that might lead to a tangible amount of libertarians dying in cars crashes.

Saint Jade IV

28-07-2008, 01:38

I just had a really good idea, if we say made a law saying you don't have to wear a seatbelt if you didn't want to, that might lead to a tangible amount of libertarians dying in cars crashes.

Seatbelts are a completely different issue to food. Seatbelt laws were introduced to protect children and passengers as well as drivers. Food and alcohol taxes are simply a revenue raiser for the government and banning certain types of fat because it is bad for you is ridiculous unless you are also going to ban refined sugar, lard, butter etc being sold in supermarkets to people or used in cooking.

Andaras

28-07-2008, 01:43

Seatbelts are a completely different issue to food. Seatbelt laws were introduced to protect children and passengers as well as drivers. Food and alcohol taxes are simply a revenue raiser for the government and banning certain types of fat because it is bad for you is ridiculous unless you are also going to ban refined sugar, lard, butter etc being sold in supermarkets to people or used in cooking.
Not really, considering that people are going to go and buy unhealthy fast foods, they aren't going to go buy concentrated lard and eat it.

Seriously, you libertarian types give me a headache, 'choice' does not exist in society, people are infinetely malleable to their economic environment and will naturally do what society tells them. It's simply a matter of modeling society to mold good attributes in our youth.

Saint Jade IV

28-07-2008, 01:59

Not really, considering that people are going to go and buy unhealthy fast foods, they aren't going to go buy concentrated lard and eat it.

Seriously, you libertarian types give me a headache, 'choice' does not exist in society, people are infinetely malleable to their economic environment and will naturally do what society tells them. It's simply a matter of modeling society to mold good attributes in our youth.

I never said I was a libertarian. Jumping to conclusions much? No, people aren't going to go and buy lard and eat it, but they are going to go and buy it and deep fry food with it. Banning it in restaurants, but only if they are cooking from scratch and not out of a packet, is patently ridiculous, and won't actually solve anything. I'm all for realistic solutions to the obesity problem, but arbitrary band-aid solutions such as the one in this article will do absolutely nothing to assist. A bit like the alcopops tax has only seen a 50% rise in straight spirit sales in Australia. Didn't do anything to curb binge drinking, just changed the way it was done.

Copiosa Scotia

28-07-2008, 16:11

Trans Fatty Acids

28-07-2008, 17:09

Castilainia

28-07-2008, 17:26

I hear they are trying to ban un-attractive people

Karshkovia

28-07-2008, 21:12

Too...much...reading T_T

Wow, I guess this statement says it all about the level of education and attention span of modern youth when small article about a law is too much text for some youth to handle. If it isn't a 10 second video clip they can't pay attention long enough to absorb all the information.

I shudder to think what would happen if anyone gave this person anything longer than paragraph to read. I guess we can pretty much guarantee that they haven't read a book in their life.

Saint Jade IV

29-07-2008, 05:44

I realize my first post in this thread was a little abrasive, but come on. It would behoove those of you who are railing against a trans fat ban to actually learn something about trans fats. We're talking about a substance that is not necessary for the production of any foods, doesn't add flavor or nutritional value to any foods, and will permanently increase your risk of heart disease. This is a no-brainer. It's like banning the use of cyanide as a spice. The government isn't telling you what you can and can't eat, they're telling restaurants that it's not okay to poison your food.

So they shouldn't use refined sugar either, since that will increase your risk of diabetes? They shouldn't use the colours, preservatives and flavours, because a lot of these can be carcinogenic?

What really, really irks me is that noone has asked why restaurants can still use trans fats found in foods coming in packets, they just aren't allowed to use it in cooking. Seriously, this ban will do nothing to decrease the use of trans fats, it will just increase the use of pre-packaged food at restaurants.

Saint Jade IV

29-07-2008, 05:47

Wow, I guess this statement says it all about the level of education and attention span of modern youth when small article about a law is too much text for some youth to handle. If it isn't a 10 second video clip they can't pay attention long enough to absorb all the information.

I shudder to think what would happen if anyone gave this person anything longer than paragraph to read. I guess we can pretty much guarantee that they haven't read a book in their life.

Wow, or maybe, its just not a topic this poster is interested in?

Why the hostility anyway?

The Alma Mater

29-07-2008, 06:35

So they shouldn't use refined sugar either, since that will increase your risk of diabetes? They shouldn't use the colours, preservatives and flavours, because a lot of these can be carcinogenic?

That is not what he said - he pointed out that transfats do nothing for the foodexperience. Colours, flavours and so on obviously DO have influence.

Ryadn

29-07-2008, 06:52

The times that I visited the Bay Area (my sister lived in Fremont), the restaurants were wonderful. I have to say, though, that I think Northern California and Southern California should be separate states.

I think pretty much everyone living here would agree. The only hiccup would be over who had to take Bakersfield. Maybe we could give it to Puerto Rico or something.

Ryadn

29-07-2008, 06:57

I mean <sniff> I didn't WANT to go to California anyway, but some legislators can just be <sob> so HURTFUL.

:(

All I was put on this earth to do was to make fryolators cheaper to operate. <sniff> CAN THAT BE SO WRONG??

<Walks off in huff>

There there. You'll always have the deep South. *pats*

I hear they are trying to ban un-attractive people

I support this mea-- hold on.

*checks mirror*

Yeah, okay, I support this measure. :p

Anti-Social Darwinism

29-07-2008, 06:58

I think pretty much everyone living here would agree. The only hiccup would be over who had to take Bakersfield. Maybe we could give it to Puerto Rico or something.

Ah, yes. Nashville West. Could we give it to Tennessee?

The Slobbering Drunks

29-07-2008, 18:47

More state sponsored nannyism. That's the modern way. Instead of taking personal accountability, we just have the state ban everything. It's much easier that way, so we don't have to think.

Atruria

29-07-2008, 19:36

"You say transfats, I say happiness"

Grave_n_idle

29-07-2008, 23:20

More state sponsored nannyism. That's the modern way. Instead of taking personal accountability, we just have the state ban everything. It's much easier that way, so we don't have to think.

Personal accountability is one thing.

The problem is - certain political agencies, most corporate agencies, and the majority of industrial agencies have decided that 'personal accountability' means YOU, not them - and they've phrased it in such a way that people are willing to take it and run with it.

I don't doubt that historians will look back in a hundred years, and marvel at how people in this time were manipulated.

Articoa

30-07-2008, 01:51

I don't care if a restaurant gets rid of their trans fats, but the state shouldn't be deciding this.

Yootopia

30-07-2008, 02:17

Wow, I guess this statement says it all about the level of education and attention span of modern youth when small article about a law is too much text for some youth to handle.
Not really, no.

Grave_n_idle

30-07-2008, 02:29

I don't care if a restaurant gets rid of their trans fats, but the state shouldn't be deciding this.

Then who should?

It's that balance between states rights and federal law... and the people that own the government.

Anti-Social Darwinism

30-07-2008, 02:49

Then who should?

It's that balance between states rights and federal law... and the people that own the government.

Decide by economic means. That means that people will vote with their stomachs.

If I'm informed about what is and is not good for me (and that information is constantly changing - remember margarine vs. butter? Turns out that butter is better for you than many brands of margarine in spite of the hype) and decide that I want to eat what isn't good for me, that's my choice. If I decide to refuse to eat at a restaurant that uses trans-fats, and I convince enough people to follow suit, that effectively changes the practice of the restaurant because it doesn't want to lose business. If enough people request food prepared without trans-fats, the restaurant will, because of demand, make those foods available.

We don't need, or want, governments taking our rights, and our responsibilities, away from us. That includes the right to be lazy, fat and stupid.

Gauthier

30-07-2008, 02:54

We don't need, or want, governments taking our rights, and our responsibilities, away from us. That includes the right to be lazy, fat and stupid.

If that was the case, then why were tobacco products regulated in the first place? After all it's our right to be hopeless nicotine addicts who die of lung cancer.

Grave_n_idle

30-07-2008, 03:18

Decide by economic means. That means that people will vote with their stomachs.

If I'm informed about what is and is not good for me (and that information is constantly changing - remember margarine vs. butter? Turns out that butter is better for you than many brands of margarine in spite of the hype) and decide that I want to eat what isn't good for me, that's my choice. If I decide to refuse to eat at a restaurant that uses trans-fats, and I convince enough people to follow suit, that effectively changes the practice of the restaurant because it doesn't want to lose business. If enough people request food prepared without trans-fats, the restaurant will, because of demand, make those foods available.

We don't need, or want, governments taking our rights, and our responsibilities, away from us. That includes the right to be lazy, fat and stupid.

See - here's part of the problem - the whole margarine versus butter argument is actually a perfect example. If you only watch advertising, and only research shallowly, then yes - margarine was the 'healthy alternative' - but there have always been people arguing that butter was better.

So - where are you going to get the information to make your decisions?

Even where a consensus appears to be evidenced - that can only be a local phenomenon - and I turn to the issue I was discussing earlier, where the FDA chooses to ignore some evidence because it comes out of, for example, Europe.

Back to the butter... okay, we've ascertained whether we want to eat butter or margarine. Maybe we've even used the data to argue it down to which 'brand'. Now... what sort of bread?

Most people will not put in that kind of research. Most people probably wouldn't know how, to be honest. They certainly wouldn't feel like they had time.

So then the question becomes - should our governing bodies do something about that situation? Well - hopefully, our regulatory bodies would help out, but everyone knows that the regulatory body in the US is basically owned by the food and drug industries, and does what it's told. (Except where that contradicts the special interest groups, like the monring-after pill, issue - but that's a digression).

So, that leaves the consumer, the provider, the supplier... and the government.

Consumers often lack information, time, ability to comprehend the data, and - yes - inclination, to work out what they are being sold. They also often lack the opportunity (and, especially among the poor) the ABILITY, to choose.

Effectively then, consumers are actually NOT am good way of regulating harmful additives in food.

The provider lacks inclination, may also lack information, but has more actual direct ability to regulate what hits the shelf/counter/plate. But they have no incentive - if they can buy two alternatives, and one is ten times better, half the price - and the average body doesn't know the difference, which one will the average provider buy? Obviously - since it's only one of their costs, they'll cut whatever corners they can.

The supplier should have all the information - they will have chosen the product and the process, and (most of the time) will have access to the information. However, as we've seen, suppliers not only fail to provide as much information as they could, for the most part, they try to HIDE information where they can. Next time you use a toiletry product that lists 'aqua' as an ingredient, you'll see what I mean.

So - without some form of external regulation, the supplier won't provide you with the information, either. They certainly won't, apropos of nothing, volunteer damning information.

Which leaves it up to the government.

Now, you could say - well, why does ANYONE have to do anything about it... and it's a fair point, except that health issues don't remain in isolation. If the government KNOWS that something provides no benefit to the consumer, and is, in fact, harmful - they are opening themselves up for legal issues - more importantly, they are increasing a problem that is already out-of-control, which is the poor health epidemic in this nation. And that costs the government. It also costs employers, and individual consumers.

So we're left with a situation where we have two factors working against one another - health-conscious consumers allied with a strange bedfellow of the government, in opposition to (most) providers and suppliers. In this arrangement, the average consumer is somewhere between an innocent stuck in the no man's land, and a collaborator with 'the enemy'.

In this arrangement, consumers can't change the market - because most of them either don't know there's a problem, or lack the means or motivation to change the terrain.

Sure, given time, market forces MIGHT be able to make some impact. As they have in the detergent market, for example. But, an entire generation has grown up while THAT battle has been raging, and that's not even close to how compromised the food market is.

The surprise, in this situation - is that the government acted at all - let alone as a creature of conscience.

Anti-Social Darwinism

30-07-2008, 03:24

See - here's part of the problem - the whole margarine versus butter argument is actually a perfect example. If you only watch advertising, and only research shallowly, then yes - margarine was the 'healthy alternative' - but there have always been people arguing that butter was better.

So - where are you going to get the information to make your decisions?

Even where a consensus appears to be evidenced - that can only be a local phenomenon - and I turn to the issue I was discussing earlier, where the FDA chooses to ignore some evidence because it comes out of, for example, Europe.

Back to the butter... okay, we've ascertained whether we want to eat butter or margarine. Maybe we've even used the data to argue it down to which 'brand'. Now... what sort of bread?

Most people will not put in that kind of research. Most people probably wouldn't know how, to be honest. They certainly wouldn't feel like they had time.

So then the question becomes - should our governing bodies do something about that situation? Well - hopefully, our regulatory bodies would help out, but everyone knows that the regulatory body in the US is basically owned by the food and drug industries, and does what it's told. (Except where that contradicts the special interest groups, like the monring-after pill, issue - but that's a digression).

So, that leaves the consumer, the provider, the supplier... and the government.

Consumers often lack information, time, ability to comprehend the data, and - yes - inclination, to work out what they are being sold. They also often lack the opportunity (and, especially among the poor) the ABILITY, to choose.

Effectively then, consumers are actually NOT am good way of regulating harmful additives in food.

The provider lacks inclination, may also lack information, but has more actual direct ability to regulate what hits the shelf/counter/plate. But they have no incentive - if they can buy two alternatives, and one is ten times better, half the price - and the average body doesn't know the difference, which one will the average provider buy? Obviously - since it's only one of their costs, they'll cut whatever corners they can.

The supplier should have all the information - they will have chosen the product and the process, and (most of the time) will have access to the information. However, as we've seen, suppliers not only fail to provide as much information as they could, for the most part, they try to HIDE information where they can. Next time you use a toiletry product that lists 'aqua' as an ingredient, you'll see what I mean.

So - without some form of external regulation, the supplier won't provide you with the information, either. They certainly won't, apropos of nothing, volunteer damning information.

Which leaves it up to the government.

Now, you could say - well, why does ANYONE have to do anything about it... and it's a fair point, except that health issues don't remain in isolation. If the government KNOWS that something provides no benefit to the consumer, and is, in fact, harmful - they are opening themselves up for legal issues - more importantly, they are increasing a problem that is already out-of-control, which is the poor health epidemic in this nation. And that costs the government. It also costs employers, and individual consumers.

So we're left with a situation where we have two factors working against one another - health-conscious consumers allied with a strange bedfellow of the government, in opposition to (most) providers and suppliers. In this arrangement, the average consumer is somewhere between an innocent stuck in the no man's land, and a collaborator with 'the enemy'.

In this arrangement, consumers can't change the market - because most of them either don't know there's a problem, or lack the means or motivation to change the terrain.

Sure, given time, market forces MIGHT be able to make some impact. As they have in the detergent market, for example. But, an entire generation has grown up while THAT battle has been raging, and that's not even close to how compromised the food market is.

The surprise, in this situation - is that the government acted at all - let alone as a creature of conscience.

So, you take away my choices as a responsible, informed adult because some people are not responsible and refuse to be informed. This is the same argument they use when they say I can't discipline my children appropriately, some people are abusers, so all people must be handicapped by this.

Humbug.

Grave_n_idle

30-07-2008, 03:43

So, you take away my choices as a responsible, informed adult because some people are not responsible and refuse to be informed. This is the same argument they use when they say I can't discipline my children appropriately, some people are abusers, so all people must be handicapped by this.

Humbug.

Wow... did you read my post? Have you read any of the posts?

No one 'chooses' trans fats, except the people making the product.

This isn't some drug that gets you high, some addiction you're fixing, some delicious secret ingredient, some stolen vice. It's a cheap alternative to a real ingredient - like putting woodshavings in pizzas and calling it a 'cellulose thickener'.

This isn't the same kind of argument as the child discipline argument, and you know it. That's a different debate, and I'm not feeling it.

The problem here is that you're arguing about choices as a responsible, informed adult - and you're ALSO arguing that market forces will make everything peachy.

And we both know that that's not true in this equation, because (assuming you really ARE 'informed'), you're going to be swimming aganst a very strong tide of people that are NOT informed. Market forces can't change anything, if they're not working.

Saint Jade IV

30-07-2008, 04:06

That is not what he said - he pointed out that transfats do nothing for the foodexperience. Colours, flavours and so on obviously DO have influence.

And they are not necessary if the food is prepared fresh and properly. They are only necessary if the food is overprocessed (McDonald's). Besides that, are restaurants going to be forced to stop cooking meat? Since trans fats occur naturally in meat?

My issue is not with the ban itself, just its arbitrary application. Why are supermarkets and frozen food companies still allowed to use trans fats, but not restaurants? Surely people are eating more trans fats through this avenue than the one night a week they eat out?

Anti-Social Darwinism

30-07-2008, 06:46

Wow... did you read my post? Have you read any of the posts?

No one 'chooses' trans fats, except the people making the product.

This isn't some drug that gets you high, some addiction you're fixing, some delicious secret ingredient, some stolen vice. It's a cheap alternative to a real ingredient - like putting woodshavings in pizzas and calling it a 'cellulose thickener'.

This isn't the same kind of argument as the child discipline argument, and you know it. That's a different debate, and I'm not feeling it.

The problem here is that you're arguing about choices as a responsible, informed adult - and you're ALSO arguing that market forces will make everything peachy.

And we both know that that's not true in this equation, because (assuming you really ARE 'informed'), you're going to be swimming aganst a very strong tide of people that are NOT informed. Market forces can't change anything, if they're not working.

I'm not arguing the badness of trans-fats, I'm arguing the right of the government to tell us what we can ingest.

I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, I seldom drink, but I don't think my preferences need to be someone else's law.

I also argue against the right of any government to protect us from ourselves. Whether the general adult populace acts like it or not, they're still adults. And even the always well informed Ahnold doesn't have the right to treat them otherwise.

NationStates Jolt Archive

California becomes first state to outlaw trans fats in restaurants