• 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.....

Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...


Nope. It's simple. If I'm paying in, that makes me a stakeholder. You don't get my money for free.
 
MMC said:
Heya Pete. :2wave: But what about these foods. They haven't been included. Despite some private industries doing so and Franchisees.

Some of the common foods affected will be donuts, crackers, popcorn, frozen pizza, creamers, and canned frosting.....snip~


If it affect frozen Pizza.....do you think it will affect Pizza joints that put their products out in grocers? Donuts and Canned Frosting too. That's a lot of Choccy yum yums. Besides have you ever smeared frosting on a woma.....uhm Well, That Sucks! :lol:
Click to expand...

Why can't those common foods get by without trans fats? There are plenty of cis and saturated fats that aren't nearly as devastating on ones health.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The second amendment isn't for us its for the government as is the rest of the constitution, the second amendment is quite clear, the government may not infringe on the right of people to bear or keep arms. The limit isn't on the people, its on the government as it has always has been. It forbids government from taking action which infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms. As I said before I believe it is quite specific it what the government may do and even more so what it may not. The Constitution only applies to people in ancillary way.
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm aware of who the Constitution is for. Come on, let's not stay at an elementary level here and argue points such as those.
What I was attempting to illustrate is that the Constitution, as it was intended to be, is a document that isn't a hard set of rules but more guidelines. The second amendment, for example, could have been interpreted in one of the other manner's in which I explained. However, it was not (thank God) and here we are.
Another example is the "separation of church and state". That is nowhere in the Constitution. It is an interpretation by Thomas Jefferson that was used at the Supreme Court to establish further clarification and interpretation of the 1st Amendment. If the Constitution were a rule book, we wouldn't need Supreme Court hearings on the validity of the "individual mandate" in the ACA. It would be black and white case.
I get where you're coming from in that there are certain portions and verbiage in Constitution that is crystal clear. I got that. All I am saying is that most of it is not crystal clear. It requires us as human beings to exercise good judgement when applying the words of it to our government. Like I said earlier, we have failed in this task.
 
ReformCollege said:
Why can't those common foods get by without trans fats? There are plenty of cis and saturated fats that aren't nearly as devastating on ones health.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
Arsenic is not a naturally occuring substance within food.
Click to expand...

Stopping you right there. Read up a bit on arsenic and you'll see why my comment wasn't as ridiculous as you think.

It is naturally occurring in food. So what's the acceptable safe dosage? Wait, you didn't even know it was in your food in the first place. How were you to determine what was safe to eat? You've gone and provided support for my very-roundabout point: you and I are not informed consumers. The world is too effin complicated for us to make a rational decision on everything we're going to come across in our lives. And for-profit companies don't have a particularly compelling reason to make sure you're doing that.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Stopping you right there. Read up a bit on arsenic and you'll see why my comment wasn't as ridiculous as you think.

It is naturally occurring in food. So what's the acceptable safe dosage? Wait, you didn't even know it was in your food in the first place. How were you to determine what was safe to eat? You've gone and provided support for my very-roundabout point: you and I are not informed consumers. The world is too effin complicated for us to make a rational decision on everything we're going to come across in our lives. And for-profit companies don't have a particularly compelling reason to make sure you're doing that.
Click to expand...

Ya, so we need a government to tell us what to eat because people are simply too stupid to undertake such a challenge...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, so we need a government to tell us what to eat because people are simply too stupid to undertake such a challenge...
Click to expand...

Please let me know how you can tell if an apple was grown in an area that the soil is tainted by arsenic.

Besides a personal HPLC to test each apple in your crisper drawer....
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, so we need a government to tell us what to eat because people are simply too stupid to undertake such a challenge...
Click to expand...

Would you rather Monsanto or whoever just decide what you eat? With even telling you what it is
 
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 say in the Constitution that the government can prevent companies from dumping strychnine in the water supply, but we stop them from doing that too.
 
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...

Oh Oh ! I know! "General Welfare!" ;P
 
I remember as a kid being told how "Bad" eggs were for you, that you should only eat one or two a week...

Imagine if they banned eggs?
 
I don't like the government telling me the things I can or cannot put into my body voluntarily. I don't think trans fats necessarily fall under that umbrella.
 
Threegoofs said:
Please let me know how you can tell if an apple was grown in an area that the soil is tainted by arsenic.

Besides a personal HPLC to test each apple in your crisper drawer....
Click to expand...


winston53660 said:
Would you rather Monsanto or whoever just decide what you eat? With even telling you what it is
Click to expand...

Well, since the point was more about being told WHAT TO EAT as opposed to simply maintaining safety standards, the comments are less relevant than intended.

That said; ideally would be to grow your own food. Next is buying organic food, since there are stricter limits on the types of chemicals that can be used, an beyond that you are really just going on faith that the food is safe, but even with organic food there is a level of faith that foods are handled properly.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course, the government regulates what can be called organic food, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

You missed the point before and now you are running with the missed point...

Food safety and dictating which foods can be eaten because of the healthfulness of the food is two different concepts.

There are multiple groups that certify food as organic, the FDA being one of the more widely recognized in the us.

However, I can take organic foods and make the biggest, fattiest, most sloppy bacon cheeseburger and fries smothered with gravy...

Now; stop trying to confuse food safety policies with enforcing healthy food choices. Two completely different concepts: and if you carry on you will be called on your dishonesty now that we are clear on the distinction.
 
BmanMcfly said:
You missed the point before and now you are running with the missed point...

Food safety and dictating which foods can be eaten because of the healthfulness of the food is two different concepts.

There are multiple groups that certify food as organic, the FDA being one of the more widely recognized in the us.

However, I can take organic foods and make the biggest, fattiest, most sloppy bacon cheeseburger and fries smothered with gravy...

Now; stop trying to confuse food safety policies with enforcing healthy food choices. Two completely different concepts: and if you carry on you will be called on your dishonesty now that we are clear on the distinction.
Click to expand...

Ok.
I'll submit to you I missed the point because you didn't clearly elucidate it.

So to clarify- you think trans fats should be allowed to be in food?

And why is an unsafe, manufactured ingredient leading to a clear worsening of heart disease any different from the addition of, say, melamine to a food which causes kidney failure?
 
Threegoofs said:
Ok.
I'll submit to you I missed the point because you didn't clearly elucidate it.
Click to expand...

No worries.

So to clarify- you think trans fats should be allowed to be in food?
Click to expand...

Well, short answer, yes...

More because of the tricks that get played to hide trans fats in foods.

Ex; a popular brand of trans-fat free chips has adjusted serving sizes so that it can be marked as 0g of trans fats when each serving is at 0.4g (with 6 servings per bag)

And why is an unsafe, manufactured ingredient leading to a clear worsening of heart disease any different from the addition of, say, melamine to a food which causes kidney failure?
Click to expand...

Ok, the furthest I would go would be to ban adding trans-fats that are not naturally occurring or a product of the method of preparation.

Beyond that the difference is that melamine is a completely artificial ingredient (a type of plastic if im not mistaken), and there really is no justifiable reason for it to be there in the first place....

We could then have a discussion about how ineffective the FDA is at PREVENTING issues. They really are about just as corrupt now as most other standards organizations.
 
BmanMcfly said:
You missed the point before and now you are running with the missed point...

Food safety and dictating which foods can be eaten because of the healthfulness of the food is two different concepts.

There are multiple groups that certify food as organic, the FDA being one of the more widely recognized in the us.

However, I can take organic foods and make the biggest, fattiest, most sloppy bacon cheeseburger and fries smothered with gravy...

Now; stop trying to confuse food safety policies with enforcing healthy food choices. Two completely different concepts: and if you carry on you will be called on your dishonesty now that we are clear on the distinction.
Click to expand...

Exactly what distinction do you make between unhealthy food and unsafe food?
 
BmanMcfly said:
No worries.



Well, short answer, yes...

More because of the tricks that get played to hide trans fats in foods.

Ex; a popular brand of trans-fat free chips has adjusted serving sizes so that it can be marked as 0g of trans fats when each serving is at 0.4g (with 6 servings per bag)



Ok, the furthest I would go would be to ban adding trans-fats that are not naturally occurring or a product of the method of preparation.

Beyond that the difference is that melamine is a completely artificial ingredient (a type of plastic if im not mistaken), and there really is no justifiable reason for it to be there in the first place....

We could then have a discussion about how ineffective the FDA is at PREVENTING issues. They really are about just as corrupt now as most other standards organizations.
Click to expand...

I see the confusion.

Trans fats ARE artificial (ok, there are trace amounts in some meats, but no one is going to regulate those), and are specifically made to improve shelf life and stability in foods.

And the FDA is pretty effective at preventing issues. Their ban on trans fats will prevent a lot of heart disease....
 
Deuce said:
Exactly what distinction do you make between unhealthy food and unsafe food?
Click to expand...

A cake is unhealthy; a cake dosed with arsenic (as example) is unsafe.
 
Threegoofs said:
I see the confusion.

Trans fats ARE artificial (ok, there are trace amounts in some meats, but no one is going to regulate those), and are specifically made to improve shelf life and stability in foods.

And the FDA is pretty effective at preventing issues. Their ban on trans fats will prevent a lot of heart disease....
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complex then that; and as I already pointed out, companies following FDA rules can adjust nutritional information to conceal trans fats (and other undesirable traits) allows them to simultaneously follow a ban under the rules without actually eliminating it.

Of course you guys are the more trusting types... So I won't carry on and risk spoiling that delusion for you.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's a bit more complex then that; and as I already pointed out, companies following FDA rules can adjust nutritional information to conceal trans fats (and other undesirable traits) allows them to simultaneously follow a ban under the rules without actually eliminating it.

Of course you guys are the more trusting types... So I won't carry on and risk spoiling that delusion for you.
Click to expand...

No. It's really not more complex. The FDA will ban artificially produced trans fats. Not labeling, but a total ban. The labeling issue alone has cut use of trans fats by 80%+
 
Threegoofs said:
No. It's really not more complex. The FDA will ban artificially produced trans fats. Not labeling, but a total ban. The labeling issue alone has cut use of trans fats by 80%+
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom