• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

If she tells him it's in there, then he DOES have a choice.

Labeling.

Labeling?

So it's OK if she wrote "This dinner contains arsenic" in small letters on the bottom of the plate (similar to the way mass produced food items list the ingredients)?
 
So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?

That's not the same thing. If someone deliberately poisons another, well....

Trans fats have long been a part of people's diet on some level. A lot of us live a long time anyway. If you balance it with healthy foods, you'll be fine. That's not the case with arsenic.
 
So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?

If the husband knew of his dinner being poisoned and yet still ate the food that would mean he consented to being poisoned and thus his rights were not violated. It's the same here. They consented to the food already knowing everything that is contains. Unless of course you're going to deny it's all on the label, in which it is. Of course, considering trans fats as poison is pretty stupid. To also stupid to consider foods being high in trans fats being a violation of your rights.
 
That's not the same thing. If someone deliberately poisons another, well....

Trans fats are a poison. Slower acting than arsenic, but a poison nonetheless.

And they're not adding it to food "on accident"


Trans fats have long been a part of people's diet on some level. A lot of us live a long time anyway. If you balance it with healthy foods, you'll be fine. That's not the case with arsenic.

Umm, no. The trans fats that are added to food are a recent invention and are not digested by the human body the way trans fats found in nature (which are uncommon) are
 
Labeling?

So it's OK if she wrote "This dinner contains arsenic" in small letters on the bottom of the plate (similar to the way mass produced food items list the ingredients)?

The writing on labeling is plenty big enough. You should perhaps invest in glasses if you can't read it.
 
You are wrong. The Constitution is very much a rulebook. But its not for you and me, its for our government. Further it is quite specific on what the government may do and more importantly what it may not do. Unfortunately our government has been ignoring the provisions for some time now.
I disagree. Rule books are black and white. There is wrong and right. Our Constitution was intentionally left vague so that it could be interpreted by the people later down the road. The Constitution, in many areas, isn't black and white. One of the main reasons this country was founded was to get out from under strict rules and guidelines. As the country has gotten older, rules and guidelines have gotten more and more strict due to abuses and misinterpretations of the document. Hence, why we are in the predicament we are today.
 
So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?

Are you seriously comparing Arsenic to transfats?

That's like saying someone convincing you to stay in and play video games instead of going outside to exercise is equivilent to shooting someone in the face, because both have the POTENTIAL to contribute to their death.

Just utterly and completely retarded. how can anyone actually hope to debate with you when it's obvious that you're being ridiculous and hyperbolic to a ridiculous and idiotic extreme with your arguments?
 
It's about taxing and spending.

The clause allows the government to tax such that it might implicitly spend on the common defense and general welfare.

Spending on the general welfare is an enumerated power.

The necessary and proper clause allows government to pass laws consistent with providing for that general welfare.

You might disagree with my understanding of the Constitution, but I certainly know what it's "about".

Its about the GOVERNMENT taxing and spending. Telling people what they can and cannot eat has nothing to do with either one. And it certainly has nothing to do with banning something.

And no, making general laws based on that clause has already been denied by SCOTUS. IE it does not give the government the power to make a law which dictates what a person can or cannot eat. I refer you to post# 47 for more education.
 
I disagree. Rule books are black and white. There is wrong and right. Our Constitution was intentionally left vague so that it could be interpreted by the people later down the road. The Constitution, in many areas, isn't black and white. One of the main reasons this country was founded was to get out from under strict rules and guidelines. As the country has gotten older, rules and guidelines have gotten more and more strict due to abuses and misinterpretations of the document. Hence, why we are in the predicament we are today.

I guess we disagree profoundly then.
 
Trans fats are a poison.

It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.

Let me use the brilliant debate tactics that you've employed all thread...

The Government can't keep someone from lacing your food with Arsenic, so it's perfectly acceptable for government to ban any foods containing cholesterol, fat, sugar, or sodium because those things have the POTENTIAL to kill you just like arsenic, just that they're "slower acting".

:roll:
 
By requiring the removal of X from food, it is effectively telling people what they can or can't eat.

No it isn't.

There's no law against you hydrogenating your own vegetable oil and adding it to anything you want.

It's not like they're adding trans fats to the list of controlled dangerous substances.

This law is simply telling manufacturers that they can't add trans fats to prepared foods.

Trans fats provide no known health benefit and there is no safe level of consumption of artificial trans fat.

What is to stop them from doing so with anything else they deem 'unhealthy'?

Lead in paint is not a standard consumable. At least not that I'm aware of.

So you're okay with a prohibition against lead and lead paint in children's toys or your not?

I'm not sure what you opinion on that is.

If you are okay with it, I fail to see how this is any different, except maybe to the extent that a trans fat prohibition is more relevant.

You're not allowed to put lead in toys because of the off chance a child sticks the toy in his mouth and eats the lead it presents a danger to the child's health.

With trans fats we're talking about a known poison that isn't safe for human consumption at any level that is deliberately added to things that the manufacturers know damn well people are going to put in their mouths, that's pretty much the only thing you do with food.
 
I've already addressed this in response to Kal'Stang immediately above.

This may not be what the Founding Fathers meant, but it is certainly what subsequent governments have interpreted it to mean.

I'm quite certain that when the Founding Fathers said "common defense" they weren't thinking about wars of aggression in the Middle East, or that when they said "general welfare" they weren't talking about criminalizing, as Schedule I narcotics, plants that George Washington grew on his farm.

We can think of hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples that have come equally out of left and right leaning governments.

You have to take the good with the bad here.

Actually they were thinking about wars of aggression. They had JUST gotten out of a revolutionary war after all. They also knew that they were weak and could have been invaded by another country. Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each other and formed the federal government instead of just forming their own little countries.
 
And no, making general laws based on that clause has already been denied by SCOTUS. IE it does not give the government the power to make a law which dictates what a person can or cannot eat. I refer you to post# 47 for more education.

Since I mentioned two clauses, one of which you and your Wikipedia reference both ignore, I'm going to refer you back to my prior comments where, hopefully, you will learn something.

Or you can continue to stamp your feet. Makes me no nevermind.
 
It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.

Let me use the brilliant debate tactics that you've employed all thread...

The Government can't keep someone from lacing your food with Arsenic, so it's perfectly acceptable for government to ban any foods containing cholesterol, fat, sugar, or sodium because those things have the POTENTIAL to kill you just like arsenic, just that they're "slower acting".

:roll:

How about tiny doses of arsenic? Small enough to cause no immediate effect but does cause long term problems?
We should let random consumers determine the acceptable safe dose of arsenic, right?
 
You can regulate your own diet in the U.S. Although arguably children cannot, and are at the whim of their parents, school cafeterias, their guardians.
They are just pushing to ban a widely recognized harmful substance from being used by businesses in the U.S. as a food ingredient.

Get with the program people. We went from eating largely whole foods, to engineering foods and it was a boom, and we did it with good intent. We also LEARNED scientifically, medically, as we did this, and we are discovering some of the things we engineer are significantly harmful. It's not rocket science. Are bodies did not evolve with these substances so they aren't able to do appropriate things with these substances. It's not like food mfgs set out to poison us. On the contrary, they did some really cool stuff with chemistry. But we did diligence and discovered while our goals were good, it had unforeseen consequences. Why are republicans so quick to point out government involvement and unforeseen consequences, but refuse to use that same reasoning on the unforeseen consequences of private industry looking to boost profits with a known harmful food ingredient? Put on your big boy/girl pants and admit that BOTH are not ideal....

Why not just ban all future learning and medical discoveries and science? I mean, if you want zero change, why even have ****ing kids? (ranting a bit there)
 
Since I mentioned two clauses, one of which you and your Wikipedia reference both ignore, I'm going to refer you back to my prior comments where, hopefully, you will learn something.

Or you can continue to stamp your feet. Makes me no nevermind.

What was the other clause?
 
Actually they were thinking about wars of aggression. They had JUST gotten out of a revolutionary war after all. They also knew that they were weak and could have been invaded by another country. Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each other and formed the federal government instead of just forming their own little countries.

If you're going to selectively pick and choose words in my comments to respond to rather than reading and responding to the whole post I'm done with you dude.

I said aggressive wars in the Middle east.

You're talking about their intent being defense from invasion.

Do you see how your response is complete nonsense in relation to my comment?

Do you?

And if your argument is that common defense is the only, or even the primary, reason the States scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went back to the drawing board (as saying, "Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each...", would imply) I'd suggest that you hit the local community college for a rudimentary Us History 101 course before you run around here telling anyone that they need to learn anything.
 
Last edited:
Since I mentioned two clauses, one of which you and your Wikipedia reference both ignore, I'm going to refer you back to my prior comments where, hopefully, you will learn something.

Or you can continue to stamp your feet. Makes me no nevermind.

No actually you only mentioned one clause. From your first post directed at my question of where in the constitution the government has this power.....

General welfare dude.

Trans fats add nothing good to food and they detract from the general welfare.

Too bad, but it's Constitutional.

See? That is what I have been talking about and that is what my wiki reference talks about. Would you like to try again?
 
I guess we disagree profoundly then.
For instance, the 2nd amendment is a great place to look:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms as long as they are a member of a "militia" ie National Guard.
Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms.
Some interpret this as all citizens may bear arms in the event of national defense.

If I asked 100 members of DP which interpretation they agreed with, it would probably break down to 30/30/30 with another 10 voting "other". That doesn't seem to be a rule book to me. In addition, it depends on which Supreme Court you have as to which way they interpret it. I believe the Founders intended for us to be able to interpret the Constitution to a point. However, there is a limit and I don't believe they anticipated our gov't becoming as large and out of control as it is. Back then, the will of the people outweighed the will of the gov't. That's not the case anymore. If the Federal gov't wants to do something, most of the lemmings in this country bend over and take it. At least some of us still fight it.
 
What was the other clause?

Go read my comments and get yourself up to speed on the conversation.

I have no problem discussing this with you or anyone, but I'm not going to repeat myself every other page.

I wouldn't ask you to do that.

Thanks.
 
It's no more of a "poison" than any other form of fat, sodium, all forms of sugar, cholesterol, etc.
Fats, sodium, cholesterol, from what I understand, are essential to human health. In a healthy diet, they are all present in discernible quantities.
Human engineered trans fat, aside from trace amounts that occur naturally, are not. And they have a well documented negative heath impact.

Do you really want to use the "everything is a poison" argument? It results in the inability of you (using that reasoning), to differentiate between ingesting mercury frosting from smart balance frosting.
 
Last edited:
No actually you only mentioned one clause. From your first post directed at my question of where in the constitution the government has this power.....



See? That is what I have been talking about and that is what my wiki reference talks about. Would you like to try again?

Actually, you've responded already to the post in which I mentioned two clauses so it's clear that you read what I wrote.

You go ahead and try again.
 
Actually they were thinking about wars of aggression. They had JUST gotten out of a revolutionary war after all. They also knew that they were weak and could have been invaded by another country. Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each other and formed the federal government instead of just forming their own little countries.[/

If you're going to selectively pick and choose words in my comments to respond to rather than reading and responding to the whole post I'm done with you dude.

I said aggressive wars in the Middle east.

You're talking about their intent being defense from invasion.

Do you see how your response is complete nonsense in relation to my comment?

Do you?

And if your argument is that common defense is the only, or even the primary, reason the States scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went back to the drawing board (as saying, "Indeed that is exactly WHY the states made a pact with each...", would imply) I'd suggest that you hit the local community college for a rudimentary Us History 101 course before you run around here telling anyone that they need to learn anything.

If you were not talking about defense from invasion by foreign countries then what the hell was your post about? I figured you had just used the wars in the ME as an analogy. If not then...???? Seems awefully off topic to me otherwise.

And I never said that is the ONLY reason that they made this country. But it certainly was ONE of the MAIN reasons.
 
How about tiny doses of arsenic? Small enough to cause no immediate effect but does cause long term problems?
We should let random consumers determine the acceptable safe dose of arsenic, right?

Arsenic is not a naturally occuring substance within food. Trans fat is. Yes, much of the transfat in various food is artificially created...but it's artificial creation of a naturally occuring nutrional substance of food. Fat is a necessary portion of a nutrional diet, Arsenic is not. Comparing a fat to arsenic is non-sensical and is a poor and pathetic debate technique attempting to take an argument to an extreme and starwmanning peoples points to suggest that they MUST agree with the extreme end.

Trans Fat is more comparable to any other form of fat, to sodium, to various sugars, to cholesterol....than it is to arsenic.
 
Actually, you've responded already to the post in which I mentioned two clauses so it's clear that you read what I wrote.

You go ahead and try again.

Perhaps you can clarify for me. To which post are you refering to?
 
Back
Top Bottom