• 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.....

BmanMcfly said:
For the sake of simplicity and this specific thread; if we are talking about artificial trans fats being added to foods then yes, there really is no safe limit, so best to be rid.

To support a ban I would have to see that the wording would not simultaneously ban burgers because there are some natural (re: good) trans fats in them, but in principle, I agree for the artificially created stuff.
Click to expand...

There is no proposal that would ban naturally occuring trans fats. None.

In fact, if there was, you'd have to ban beef. I'm pretty sure you'd hear some outrage about that...
 
MMC said:
Say it isn't so, your kidding me? What do you think about this? Shouldn't people regulate their own diets? What do you think this will do to the restaurant and food manufacturers?
Click to expand...

I don't think they'll be able to do it, but I wouldn't be opposed to measures in regulating such substances. It's no different than banning crack, except in the case of artificially added trans fats, nearly everybody is consuming that garbage. That's a pretty big problem, since a third of our population is obese, and that number is rising. Something has to be done about it, because people apparently can't regulate their own diets.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
That's the point. The federal government was never intended to micromanage the activities of its citizens and the Constitution certainly contains nothing directing citizen activities...
Click to expand...

Banning dangerous substances in our food? BIG GOVERNMENT!
Allowing dangerous substances in our food? FREEDOM!

I swear, only in 21st-century America are things such as funding our schools, maintaining our highways, and keeping harmful substances out of our food political issues.
 
BmanMcfly said:
A cake is unhealthy; a cake dosed with arsenic (as example) is unsafe.
Click to expand...

How about a cake with a tiny amount of arsenic? Low enough to not be an immediate threat but prolonged exposure over the course of your life can cause serious health issues?
 
MMC said:
Hiya RC. :2wave: I think they can.....also if they do. They might not last as long in a grocery tho. Which I wouldn't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...

Idk about you, but my saturated fats taste pretty awesome.
 
Deuce said:
How about a cake with a tiny amount of arsenic? Low enough to not be an immediate threat but prolonged exposure over the course of your life can cause serious health issues?
Click to expand...

Well; hate to break it to you, but companies are allowed to put what is effectively toxic waste in small amounts in your food with no problem... FDA approved, you'd have to look up the msds sheet for all those ingredients that you would need to be a chemist to read. There's also the "GRAS" standard, which states that if something was not considered toxic in the 50's (back when doctors would give cigarettes for sore throat) AND there has not been study showing otherwise; then it is "generally regarded as safe".
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well; hate to break it to you, but companies are allowed to put what is effectively toxic waste in small amounts in your food with no problem... FDA approved, you'd have to look up the msds sheet for all those ingredients that you would need to be a chemist to read. There's also the "GRAS" standard, which states that if something was not considered toxic in the 50's (back when doctors would give cigarettes for sore throat) AND there has not been study showing otherwise; then it is "generally regarded as safe".
Click to expand...

Right. And the current issue regards removing trans fats from the GRAS list.

I agree with this.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well; hate to break it to you, but companies are allowed to put what is effectively toxic waste in small amounts in your food with no problem... FDA approved, you'd have to look up the msds sheet for all those ingredients that you would need to be a chemist to read. There's also the "GRAS" standard, which states that if something was not considered toxic in the 50's (back when doctors would give cigarettes for sore throat) AND there has not been study showing otherwise; then it is "generally regarded as safe".
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Food products are allowed to contain substances that are harmful, but they're not necessarily allowed to add them to food.

And I'm pretty sure that arsenic has always been considered toxic
 
sangha said:
Not entirely true. Food products are allowed to contain substances that are harmful, but they're not necessarily allowed to add them to food.

And I'm pretty sure that arsenic has always been considered toxic
Click to expand...

It's not a short bit of homework, but the GRAS list is available online, as is msds information and other details about each item on that list. (I first found out about GRAS after working at a McDonald's in my youth and trying to sort out myths from realities of their food).

And yes, if it's on the GRAS list, even of the material is produced as a byproduct of industry, it can be added to food in small quantities.... Typically labelled as "preservatives".

Arsenic is not on the grad list, you are right.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's not a short bit of homework, but the GRAS list is available online, as is msds information and other details about each item on that list. (I first found out about GRAS after working at a McDonald's in my youth and trying to sort out myths from realities of their food).

And yes, if it's on the GRAS list, even of the material is produced as a byproduct of industry, it can be added to food in small quantities.... Typically labelled as "preservatives".

Arsenic is not on the grad list, you are right.
Click to expand...

Yes, GRAS items are allowed. To be clear, I was talking about unsafe additives. While some level of contaminants are allowed (insect parts, rat hair, etc), you can't add anything that is considered to be unsafe.
 
sangha said:
Yes, GRAS items are allowed. To be clear, I was talking about unsafe additives. While some level of contaminants are allowed (insect parts, rat hair, etc), you can't add anything that is considered to be unsafe.
Click to expand...

Not going to repeat this again, because I'm not doing your homework on this one, and it is a long one.

Go through all the items on that gras list and you will be shocked at what people considered "safe" in the 50's.

Again; at that time doctors would recommend cigarettes for things like sore throat.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Not going to repeat this again, because I'm not doing your homework on this one, and it is a long one.

Go through all the items on that gras list and you will be shocked at what people considered "safe" in the 50's.

Again; at that time doctors would recommend cigarettes for things like sore throat.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you're getting hostile, or what your point is. We're talking about trans fats and taking them off of the GRAS list which would mean that producers would not be able to add it to their products.
 
How long until government healthcare has the power to dictate what exactly we eat to control longterm healthcare costs?
 
sangha said:
I have no idea why you're getting hostile, or what your point is. We're talking about trans fats and taking them off of the GRAS list which would mean that producers would not be able to add it to their products.
Click to expand...

This is not hostility, I spent alot of hours looking through that list and what the chemicals, and yea I agree with you, but when deuce talks about allowing small amounts of arsenic that would only have a negative effect after a while...

If we are talking about virtually all processed food; then what IS allowed would fall into this type of category, and Really does fall into this type of category.

I am annoyed because the "safe" list is more like a list that follows that definition that deuce suggested as a justification for FDA food bans.

also, I am short because I'm not going through that list again, it was tedious, and alot on that list ACTUALLY IS pretty inert.
 
Erod said:
How long until government healthcare has the power to dictate what exactly we eat to control longterm healthcare costs?
Click to expand...

You got it... The answer, as soon as people will accept it.

Remember, your bad health decisions now represents a cost to EVERYONE, so if taxing those choices don't work, then someone's going to have to step in and control our collective diets.
 
BmanMcfly said:
This is not hostility, I spent alot of hours looking through that list and what the chemicals, and yea I agree with you, but when deuce talks about allowing small amounts of arsenic that would only have a negative effect after a while...

If we are talking about virtually all processed food; then what IS allowed would fall into this type of category, and Really does fall into this type of category.

I am annoyed because the "safe" list is more like a list that follows that definition that deuce suggested as a justification for FDA food bans.

also, I am short because I'm not going through that list again, it was tedious, and alot on that list ACTUALLY IS pretty inert.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you had to go through the list the first time, never mind again

But the fact that some things are allowed that we may not want to have added to our food doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban the addition of trans fats. I'm all for banning all those other harmful additives too but in the meantime, trans fats don't belong in our food, IMO
 
My opinion is that they shouldn't be able to misrepresent industrial waste products as food. There oughta be a law.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Out of curiosity but...where exactly in the Constitution does it allow the government to dictate what people can or cannot eat?
Click to expand...

It doesn't list poisons and Agent Orange either - do you want to make them readily available also?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Out of curiosity but...where exactly in the Constitution does it allow the government to dictate what people can or cannot eat?
Click to expand...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That's from Article 6 of the US Constitution, which does allow the Federal government to pass whatever laws it feels appropriate. Without that provision, people would still be killing people with snake oil remedies. Transfat is just another kind of snake oil.
 
Erod said:
How long until government healthcare has the power to dictate what exactly we eat to control longterm healthcare costs?
Click to expand...
It's an important concern. The other side of that coin is that if I do have to subsidize healthcare in this country, and I do (through hospitals, medicare, Medicaid, etc.), then I really don't want you eating **** that's known to be unhealthy in any quantity for basically business shelf-life reasons. It would make no sense. If you want to be quick about the answer, it's when the U.S. becomes a dictatorship is when that would occur. Since it's not, and there are a lot of checks and balances, a lot of politics and public involvement and it does slowly appear to adapt to more modern culture and science (too slowly for some, too fast for others), I don't think there is any real risk of government controlling what we eat. I don't think anyone would stand for it, it's outrageous and we are in now way realistically close to that.

Using that as rhetoric to whip up conservatives may have benefit in politics, but I would hope 90% of democrats/liberals would likewise reject government dictating exactly what we eat under normal circumstances.

If something is demonstrably unhealthy, banning it in the U.S. as a food additive seems reasonable.
 
danarhea said:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That's from Article 6 of the US Constitution, which does allow the Federal government to pass whatever laws it feels appropriate. Without that provision, people would still be killing people with snake oil remedies. Transfat is just another kind of snake oil.
Click to expand...

Talking about a broad interpretation. Note the first part that you bolded, particularly the "made in pursuance thereof". What exactly do you think that means?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Talking about a broad interpretation. Note the first part that you bolded, particularly the "made in pursuance thereof". What exactly do you think that means?
Click to expand...

This goes to the general welfare clause. And, of course, people dying due to heart attacks caused by food additives comes under general welfare. This is no different than the government shutting down those who sold snake oil remedies that injured and killed people in the 1800's and early 1900's.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

The FDA isn't telling you what you can and can not eat. It is telling businesses what they can't add to food.

danarhea said:
This goes to the general welfare clause. And, of course, people dying due to heart attacks caused by food additives comes under general welfare. This is no different than the government shutting down those who sold snake oil that injured and killed people in the 1800's.
Click to expand...

It goes to the govts' power to protect my rights, particularly my right to life. Putting poison in my food infringes on my right to life

It also goes to the govt's power to regulate interstate commerce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom