FDA orders end of artifical trans-fats in processed food within 3 years

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Slippery slope much?  If it's beneficial in limited quantities, the FDA doesn't do jack about it.  The FDA hasn't found any nutritional benefit to trans-fats and plenty of negatives.  The companies can do other things if they want longer shelf lives, or they can, you know, tighten up their supply chain a bit and keep things a little fresher.

I don't buy pre-sliced bread anymore.  I either bake my own or get something like an Italian loaf from the bakery department.  They're just better, and not really any more expensive where I live.

Well then, no one could possible hold a different opinion than you, or think differently on such personal issues as their daily food choices.  So let's go ahead and force everyone to conform to your way of living.

Murica.

[Firethorn]

Well then, no one could possible hold a different opinion than you, or think differently on such personal issues as their daily food choices.  So let's go ahead and force everyone to conform to your way of living.

Murica.

*facepalm*

I'll explain further:
1.  Transfats do NOT improve taste, texture, or nutrition over other common options.  It extends shelf life some.
2.  Transfats DO cause a number of health problems that are expensive and such.

At least to me, you sound like you're arguing for leaded gasoline.

So, because you did it again:  Slippery slope.  That I support getting rid of trans-fats doesn't mean that  support extensive interference in 'daily food choices'.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Nope, I'm just remarking on the smarmy attitude that because you think something is good or better, we all have to agree and live the same way as you.

Don't like trans fats?  Cool, don't eat 'em.  I'm not in favor of 'em either, to be honest.  I avoid 'em.  But I wouldn't presume to force others to adopt my way of thinking and eating.

Freedom means not telling your neighbor how to live.

That I support getting rid of trans-fats doesn't mean that  support extensive interference in 'daily food choices'.

That's exactly what it means.

[makattak]

*facepalm*

I'll explain further:
1.  Transfats do NOT improve taste, texture, or nutrition over other common options.  It extends shelf life some.
2.  Transfats DO cause a number of health problems that are expensive and such.

At least to me, you sound like you're arguing for leaded gasoline.

So, because you did it again:  Slippery slope.  That I support getting rid of trans-fats doesn't mean that  support extensive interference in 'daily food choices'.

Allow me to rebut:

Transfats do NOT improve taste, texture, or nutrition over other common options. I have no idea if this is the case, but I'll grant you that point. I'll respond with a question: what are the cost comparatives between these "other common options" and artificial transfats? (because we're talking about only the artificial ones with this ban).

It extends shelf life some. That is a not insignificant issue to the ultimate cost of food.

Transfats DO cause a number of health problems that are expensive and such. In what quantities? Is it unsafe in ANY quantity as the government is claiming or is it just a good idea to limit the amount? (I'm setting a trap here, so you might want to do some research before answering that question.)

[Marnoot]

At least to me, you sound like you're arguing for leaded gasoline.

Someone choosing to burn leaded gasoline potentially harms others through the introduction of lead compounds into the local atmosphere. Someone choosing to wolf-down trans-fat laden frosted cupcakes harms no one but themselves.

[charby]

Someone choosing to burn leaded gasoline potentially harms others through the introduction of lead compounds into the local atmosphere. Someone choosing to wolf-down trans-fat laden frosted cupcakes harms no one but themselves.

...or becomes so unhealthy they become a burden on society. Proper nutrition is needed for the health of the nation and her defense if she is even invaded and people need to fight.

[KD5NRH]

...or becomes so unhealthy they become a burden on society. Proper nutrition is needed for the health of the nation and her defense if she is even invaded and people need to fight.

That same argument could be used to mandate daily calisthenics.

[charby]

That same argument could be used to mandate daily calisthenics.

[makattak]

You can see the difference between propaganda to encourage healthy diets and outright governmental bans on "unhealthy" food, right?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/11/07/7-foods-that-wont-be-the-same-if-trans-fats-are-banned/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[charby]

You can see the difference between propaganda to encourage healthy diets and outright governmental bans on "unhealthy" food, right?

yes

[KD5NRH]

Transfats do NOT improve taste, texture, or nutrition over other common options. I have no idea if this is the case, but I'll grant you that point. I'll respond with a question: what are the cost comparatives between these "other common options" and artificial transfats? (because we're talking about only the artificial ones with this ban).

And as always, who defines "common?"

It extends shelf life some. That is a not insignificant issue to the ultimate cost of food.

Especially in low volume situations; it's much easier to estimate stock and prepare for unexpected demand surges efficiently with longer shelf life.  Short shelf life translates to having to clearance or trash more product as it nears or arrives at the sell-by date, and more waste of products that come in fixed lot sizes.  That means a higher base price, and moreso for the small retailer who lacks the volume to absorb as much.  IOW, reducing shelf life is another circumstance that hits the smallest businesses hardest.

[De Selby]

*facepalm*

I'll explain further:
1.  Transfats do NOT improve taste, texture, or nutrition over other common options.  It extends shelf life some.
2.  Transfats DO cause a number of health problems that are expensive and such.

At least to me, you sound like you're arguing for leaded gasoline.

So, because you did it again:  Slippery slope.  That I support getting rid of trans-fats doesn't mean that  support extensive interference in 'daily food choices'.

Not leaded gas, just leaded food  

Only on APS can you read that banning poison in food is evil within days of reading that people should be jailed for being too loud at the movie theatre, all on grounds of freedom!

[KD5NRH]

Not leaded gas, just leaded food

Hell, I don't particularly care if the food has lead in it, as long as it's properly and conspicuously marked as such.  People stupid enough to eat something that clearly says "contains lead" deserve the results; I just shouldn't have to pay for them afterward.

Other countries have fairly decent labeling laws (with things like you can't "comply" by putting the required text in 2.5pt light salmon on pink text in the underlap of the label) that require conspicuous, common sense labeling, (like your product that is named, branded and clearly marked as "peanut butter" cannot be held liable for containing peanuts without further warning, but would have to advise that it doesn't contain peanuts if it's some sort of synthetic peanut butter, and would have to do it in a font of reasonable size on the front of the package) and find bans or restrictions to be much less useful because consumers will just stop buying cookies properly labeled as "now with more arsenic, diesel residue and chicken feces."

[charby]

How about requiring a big label on the front of the package that has to take up at least 15% of the front and also ineligible for food stamps/WIC. Instead of outlawing it?

[Firethorn]

How about requiring a big label on the front of the package that has to take up at least 15% of the front and also ineligible for food stamps/WIC. Instead of outlawing it?

Probably just as big of a death sentence to products containing the stuff as banning it.

[De Selby]

How about requiring a big label on the front of the package that has to take up at least 15% of the front and also ineligible for food stamps/WIC. Instead of outlawing it?

quit being such a school nanny - if people want to know what's in food they'll test it themselves.

[zahc]

I find it amusing that this crowd is more in favor of banning transfats than of banning pot.

[charby]

I find it amusing that this crowd is more in favor of banning transfats than of banning pot.

Food is necessary to sustain life, pot is a luxury.

[Scout26]

Yes, but the foods listed in CS&D's article are mostly Junk foods.   As my 90 yo father says "Everything in Moderation."  So no.  Uncle Sugar has precisely zero bidness telling me what I can and cannot stick in my piehole.


But will NO ONE THINK OF THE TWINKIES !!!!!

[charby]

Yes, but the foods listed in CS&D's article are mostly Junk foods.   As my 90 yo father says "Everything in Moderation."  So no.  Uncle Sugar has precisely zero bidness telling me what I can and cannot stick in my piehole.


But will NO ONE THINK OF THE TWINKIES !!!!!

Crackers, frozen pizza and margarine are high in transfats, just think how much better life will be with lard crackers, dairy fat in the pizza and no margarine. I repeat no margarine, one more time no margarine.

I've had homemade Twinkies made with butter, cream and lard. Damn tasty!

[Scout26]

HAahahahahahaha

You really think the FDA will allow those in food??


Maybe you need to go to a local school and check out a "Michelle Obama Lunch"...

[charby]

HAahahahahahaha

You really think the FDA will allow those in food??


Maybe you need to go to a local school and check out a "Michelle Obama Lunch"...

The pork/beef/dairy lobby is strong.

[Ron]

My resources of outrage are limited so I find it hard to get worked up over the banning of an artificial substance that has been repeatedly shown to raise LDL cholesterol levels, a decent predictor of future cardio vascular disease.

The labeling requirements that went into effect a few years ago were enough to satisfy my concerns. As long as I can read the label and make sure I'm not being poisoned I'm OK taking on that personal responsibility. If it has hydronated oils or transfats I usually skip it.

Now that we all have a financial stake in each others health due to Obamacare the freedom to eat whatever you want is imperiled. Pretty soon the left will be squawking that it is unpatriotic to be fat.  

[MechAg94]

They got permission from the FedGov to add it in the first place did they not?  

You start to wonder why the FDA even regulates this stuff.  It doesn't remove liability for the company if the FDA approves it and they constantly find stuff that was approved that is not so good.