• 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.....

Peter Grimm said:
I have no problem with this. Americans are too fat. If it's gonna take a nanny state to whip us in to shape, so be it.

What really breaks my heart is looking at all the fat kids today. So many of today's kids are just..... chunky. I don't know if you blame the parents or the culture, but something's got to give.

We really need to put more of a premium on our health in this country. If it takes an FDA ban to get the ball rolling, so be it.
Click to expand...

So much for personal responsibility.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Well, what can I say. We're all responsible for our own diets today, and most Americans are fat. How's that working out?
Click to expand...

It's called freedom. We could end crime too if government made half the people cops and stationed them in the other half's living room.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It's called freedom. We could end crime too if government made half the people cops and stationed them in the other half's living room.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. My beliefs and ideals agree with you - I hate nanny states and I believe in personal freedom. But my eyes and ears say you're wrong - the country is full of fat asses.

You want people to be able to take care of themselves, but some people will literally eat themselves to death because they can't tolerate the mild discomfort of being a little bit hungry, and they can't be bothered to do any physical exercise.

What are you gonna do about people like that?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I hear ya. My beliefs and ideals agree with you - I hate nanny states and I believe in personal freedom. But my eyes and ears say you're wrong - the country is full of fat asses.

You want people to be able to take care of themselves, but some people will literally eat themselves to death because they can't tolerate the mild discomfort of being a little bit hungry, and they can't be bothered to do any physical exercise.

What are you gonna do about people like that?[/QUOTE]

Let nature take its course.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
I hear ya. My beliefs and ideals agree with you - I hate nanny states and I believe in personal freedom. But my eyes and ears say you're wrong - the country is full of fat asses.

You want people to be able to take care of themselves, but some people will literally eat themselves to death because they can't tolerate the mild discomfort of being a little bit hungry, and they can't be bothered to do any physical exercise.

What are you gonna do about people like that?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Its called freedom. They have a right to eat themselve to death. You do not have a right to make them not do so.
 
MMC said:
The Food and Drug Administration is exploring a nationwide ban of trans fats in food. Removing trans fats from the "generally recognized as safe" list - a list that includes salt, sugar, and other typical substances - would be an incredible step for the FDA.

2006-10-30T182822Z_01_SHN620_RTRIDSP_0_LEISURE-YUM-KFC.jpg


The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday took a first step toward potentially eliminating most trans fat from the food supply, saying it has made a preliminary determination that a major source of trans fats -- partially hydrogenated oils -- is no longer "generally recognized as safe."

While food manufacturers and restaurants have voluntarily lowered the trans-fats in the last ten years, that's not enough for the FDA and other food nannies. Some of the common foods affected will be donuts, crackers, popcorn, frozen pizza, creamers, and canned frosting.

CNN notes that the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been pushing a campaign to get the FDA to prohibit trans fats for a long time now. This is a strange twist - CSPI was one of the groups that, in the 1980s, pushed American consumers to substitute trans fats in their diet for saturated fats.

FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban - Kevin Glass


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...

Well, now that you have fascist healthcare (combining government power with corporate interests); your bad health decisions adds costs to everyone else, so of course the government can now dictate what you eat.
 
This sort of thing has nothing to do with food, it's about government control of every aspect of your life. That is the trend of Liberalism/Socialism in our once beautiful country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nothing. Its called freedom. They have a right to eat themselve to death. You do not have a right to make them not do so.
Click to expand...

The hell I don't. If our collective tax contributions go toward their health care then our society has every right in the world to force people to be healthier.

The only way you can say they have the right to eat themselves to death is if they have to pay for every dime of their own healthcare.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so if there is somthing [sic] in the constitution where it says people have to eat waffles for breakfest [sic] on the 2nd day of every odd numbered month, would you follow that provision to the letter?
Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:
that was not the point i was arguing.

if the Constitution of the united states had some pointless provision that says members of congress cannot wear Harlequin colored outfits, does the congress have to follow that provision without question like religious doctrine.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is the highest law of the land.

If, somehow, an Amendment were properly ratified into it that imposed some silly new rule, as you suggest, then yes, we would all be obligated to obey that rule.

But as hypotheticals go, this is an exceptionally ridiculous one. There is no such provision in the Constitution, nor do I think would anyone think that there is any plausible chance of ever getting an amendment ratified to add such a provision. It's pointless to make the argument that you seem to be trying to make, based on a hypothetical “what if” about the Constitution containing a sort of provision that it does not, and never will contain.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I have no problem with this. Americans are too fat. If it's gonna take a nanny state to whip us in to shape, so be it.
·
·
·​
If it takes an FDA ban to get the ball rolling, so be it.
Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:
I hear ya. My beliefs and ideals agree with you - I hate nanny states and I believe in personal freedom.
Click to expand...

3.split-tongue-forked-tongue-300x300.jpg
 
Peter Grimm said:
The hell I don't. If our collective tax contributions go toward their health care then our society has every right in the world to force people to be healthier.
Click to expand...

In other words, one outrageous abuse of government power is now to be an excuse and a justification for another outrageous abuse of government power.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In other words, one outrageous abuse of government power is now to be an excuse and a justification for another outrageous abuse of government power.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. If we go mountain climbing and we're clipped or tethered together, it's then in my interest to make sure you don't slip and fall. If you do, you're gonna drag my ass down with you.
 
MMC said:
The Food and Drug Administration is exploring a nationwide ban of trans fats in food. Removing trans fats from the "generally recognized as safe" list - a list that includes salt, sugar, and other typical substances - would be an incredible step for the FDA.

2006-10-30T182822Z_01_SHN620_RTRIDSP_0_LEISURE-YUM-KFC.jpg


The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday took a first step toward potentially eliminating most trans fat from the food supply, saying it has made a preliminary determination that a major source of trans fats -- partially hydrogenated oils -- is no longer "generally recognized as safe."

While food manufacturers and restaurants have voluntarily lowered the trans-fats in the last ten years, that's not enough for the FDA and other food nannies. Some of the common foods affected will be donuts, crackers, popcorn, frozen pizza, creamers, and canned frosting.

CNN notes that the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been pushing a campaign to get the FDA to prohibit trans fats for a long time now. This is a strange twist - CSPI was one of the groups that, in the 1980s, pushed American consumers to substitute trans fats in their diet for saturated fats.

FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban - Kevin Glass


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...

....but you can still buy a pack of smokes... interesting how the FDA picks and chooses what is unsafe....
 
I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution that supports this either. Don't get me wrong, I don't think eliminating trans fats from our diets is a bad thing, I just don't see it as a responsibility of the federal government. Of course some of our "living document" folks might disagree and consider it a national defense issue, what it really is is the result of government mandated health care control and the soft drink experiment in NYC. Where I would draw the line is when the government tells me I can no longer raise and process my own food because they don't like the content. It has already been tried and will come up again.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The hell I don't. If our collective tax contributions go toward their health care then our society has every right in the world to force people to be healthier.

The only way you can say they have the right to eat themselves to death is if they have to pay for every dime of their own healthcare.
Click to expand...

You don't. No more than you have a right to tell people what political affiliation they should follow. After all..your tax dollars goes towards those people to. My tax dollars are spent on you also. Does that mean I get to tell you what you can and cannot do or eat or vote? The whole "my tax dollars!" yadda yadda yadda is bunch of crock.
 
Buck Ewer said:
...'To Promote the General Welfare ...'
Click to expand...

Does not mean what you think it means and has never been upheld by SCOTUS as such.

This is the second time someone has posted this. It is also why I firmly believe why this country is such a mess. People don't know what the words in the Constitution actually mean, say, and talk about. They don't know its history beyond the general outline of "some dudes wrote a founding document called "the constitution of the united states of america duude!".

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]

Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[12]
Click to expand...

Wiki will give you a base line Do your home work from there people.
 
If they ban trans fats I will just fry my twinkies in lard--it is organic.
 
Deuce said:
How many studies have you read regarding the health effects of trans fats and/or safe dosages of literally anything in your food?
Click to expand...

Actually quite a few.

You seem to not understand my point. It's not that trans fat is good, it's the infringement, once again, of people's rights to make their own choices based on information provided to them.

Education is the key... not the government making the choices for you.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The hell I don't. If our collective tax contributions go toward their health care then our society has every right in the world to force people to be healthier.

The only way you can say they have the right to eat themselves to death is if they have to pay for every dime of their own healthcare.
Click to expand...

When will you start forcing people to jog I wonder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom