• 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:
Perhaps you can clarify for me. To which post are you refering to?
Click to expand...

#62

I initially mentioned general welfare in post #12, last night at 5:12 pm just as I was turning off my computer and heading home for the night. It was almost a "drive by" comment.

As I've been pressed on that comment this morning, primarily by you, I've expanded on what I meant.

I would actually suggest that you go back to post #12 and reread everything that you and I have said to each other so that we're on the same page here.
 
Mach said:
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.
Click to expand...

Several years ago those "experts" agreed that whole milk was bad for you. A few years after they said that they turned around and said whole milk was essential to a healthy diet. At another point in time they said that eggs were also bad for you. Awhile after they they started saying that it was good for you due to the high protein in it. (which ironically iirc correctly it having "too much" protein was why they first said it was bad for you). And all of it with "documented proof".

All this reminds me of that commercial where it talks about "High fructose corn syrup" and how people thought it was bad for you...and then the commercial saying that it actually wasn't. Ironically experts had at one time said that it was bad for you also. And now....:roll: They can't make up their minds worth crap.

In reality though, EVERYTHING is bad for you if you have it in excess. Its all about having things in moderation.
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
soot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was it the necessary and proper clause?
 
Zyphlin said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a bit of hyperbole there, but the fact remains that regular consumption of non-massive amounts of trans fats will affect your health and greatly increase your odds of dying from heart disease.
 
Zyphlin said:
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:
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The things you mention all provide nutrition for the body while trans fats (at least the type that are added to food products) do not. Instead, they harm people and can lead to death
 
sangha said:
Yes, there is a bit of hyperbole there, but the fact remains that regular consumption of non-massive amounts of trans fats will affect your health and greatly increase your odds of dying from heart disease.
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole example is all over the Internet at the moment. Where did you get it from?
 
Zyphlin said:
Arsenic is not a naturally occuring substance within food.
Click to expand...

Actually, it sometimes such as when an animal eats something that has been contaminated with arsenic. It happens in nature

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.
Click to expand...

The trans fats added to food are qualitatively different than the ones found in nature. They are harmful to humans, unlike the natural forms of trans fats.

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.
Click to expand...

The man-made trans fats are not a necessary portion of a nutritional diet. Quite the opposite

Trans Fat is more comparable to any other form of fat, to sodium, to various sugars, to cholesterol....than it is to arsenic.
Click to expand...

Nope. Without sodium, carbs or cholesterol, you die
 
Henrin said:
Was it the necessary and proper clause?
Click to expand...

Read the Constitution.

When you get to the words, "necessary and proper", you'll know you've found it!!!
 
soot said:
Read the Constitution.

When you get to the words, "necessary and proper", you'll know you've found it!!!
Click to expand...

So you think the necessary and proper clause is a catch all clause?
 
Henrin said:
So you think the necessary and proper clause is a catch all clause?
Click to expand...

I've already addressed that.

Again, go back and read my comments.
 
GottaGo said:
By requiring the removal of X from food, it is effectively telling people what they can or can't eat. What is to stop them from doing so with anything else they deem 'unhealthy'?
Click to expand...
Legal challenges, executive oversight, public protest.

I might add, this is not a particularly new thing. Nor, really, is it a bad thing, as heart disease is the #1 killer in the US. Nor would it be awful to ban, for example, types of food coloring that are carcinogenic.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Several years ago those "experts" agreed that whole milk was bad for you.
In reality though, EVERYTHING is bad for you if you have it in excess. Its all about having things in moderation.
Click to expand...

Boiling that argument down it looks like this:

Science is not infallible
Therefore we should ignore science

As to milk, whole milk has downsides, all food does, but no one was seriously trying to ban whole milk, so why are you comparing the two? The idea that because someone somewhere argued that the extraordinary amount of saturated fat in whole milk may not be good to drink regularly as an adult, is a far cry from banning trans fat because with regards to health it has only negative health effects.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Several years ago those "experts" agreed that whole milk was bad for you. A few years after they said that they turned around and said whole milk was essential to a healthy diet.
Click to expand...
No one has ever said you must have whole milk, or any kind of milk -- except the dairy lobby.

Milk does offer health benefits; and whole milk in conjunction with an exercise regime helps build muscle mass. It's still high in fat, though.


[qutoe]At another point in time they said that eggs were also bad for you. Awhile after they they started saying that it was good for you due to the high protein in it.[/quote]
Incorrect. The earlier belief was based on the high cholesterol content of eggs. However, we've known for a little while that eating foods high in cholesterol does not, apparently, raise your cholesterol levels; it appears that your body has a "set point" for cholesterol.

No one has even remotely considered banning whole milk or eggs.


All this reminds me of that commercial where it talks about "High fructose corn syrup" and how people thought it was bad for you...and then the commercial saying that it actually wasn't.
Click to expand...
At this time, no one knows if HFCS is or is not harmful. We do know that it is cheaper than standard sugar (which means it's used more broadly and abundantly). Neither are healthy, as all they do is provide empty calories. (The only exception I know of is that older people lose their sense of taste, but respond to sweet; adding sugar to a dish can make the food more palatable, especially for someone suffering from dementia.)


Ironically experts had at one time said that it was bad for you also. And now....:roll: They can't make up their minds worth crap.
Click to expand...
Research started showing the risks of trans fats around 20 years ago. The most persuasive evidence is from the Nurse's Health Study I, which started tracking diet in 1980 and has 120,000 participants.


In reality though, EVERYTHING is bad for you if you have it in excess. Its all about having things in moderation.
Click to expand...
There is no safe amount of trans fats, and no health benefits to adding trans fats to food.
 
Are the effects permanent/cumulative?
I ate me some serious trans fat growing up, people just didn't know any better.
 
soot said:
General welfare dude.

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

Too bad, but it's Constitutional.
Click to expand...

What about junk food with no nutritional value? Sorry, but it's not the function of govt. to say what we can or cannot put in our food. We have people here in Canada wanting the govt to ban trans fats, too. They can get bent, it's supposed to be a FREE country.
 
soot said:
I've already addressed that.

Again, go back and read my comments.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, but you related it back to the general welfare clause. That doesn't make any sense.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Sorry, but it's not the function of govt...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but apparently it is.

You can argue all day long that it shouldn't be, but here in America, at least, it's going to happen so it is a function of government.

Too bad, so sad.

That actually goes for everyone else I've been arguing with in this thread.

I don't really know why I'm even wasting my time.

I'm not going to see this your way, you "patriots" aren't going to see it my way.

You don't think the government should do this?

You don't think it's Constitutional?

Whatever.

Call your Congressman, file a lawsuit, start a God damn revolution over trans fats for all I care.

This is pretty much a done deal.

My side wins, your side loses.

Don't like it?

Hoist the Gadsden flag and start slitting throats, or something.
 
Scrabaholic said:
What about junk food with no nutritional value? Sorry, but it's not the function of govt. to say what we can or cannot put in our food. We have people here in Canada wanting the govt to ban trans fats, too. They can get bent, it's supposed to be a FREE country.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

You think we should have no guidelines on what is generally regarded as safe as additives in food?

You're cool with melamine being fed to you and your perky little dog? Renal failure takes a while to develop, but think of the money you'll save! You're OK with no legal limits on arsenic? How about letting cows graze in pastures that have been contaminated with Benzene? How about fish caught around the Fukushima plant? It might be really cheap, although I'm guessing you probably are against mandatory company disclosure too, so you'll never know.

In your post, I can think of no better example of Libertarianism/Conservatism combined with no actual consideration for the outcomes of a rigid ideology.
 
Is Crisco still going be legal?
 
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...
Can you show me where in that article they actually show anyone from the FDA proposing a ban? It seems all they have done is say it's not considered "generally safe" or whatever. The only area I see concerning bans is where the author apparently is fear mongering.

Thanks.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you show me where in that article they actually show anyone from the FDA proposing a ban? It seems all they have done is say it's not considered "generally safe" or whatever. The only area I see concerning bans is where the author apparently is fear mongering.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Its actually a prelimiinary recommendation, not a ban.

They will then study the issue a bit more and gather competing testimony from scientists and manufacturers as to why the recommendation should not be made permanent. This is (I think ) a 60 day window. Its usually a formality - with data this strong, this wont be overturned. The next step is a final recommendation to remove trans fats from the GRAS (Generally recognized as safe) list, which becomes part of the FDA regulations, which is functionally a ban.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Can you show me where in that article they actually show anyone from the FDA proposing a ban? It seems all they have done is say it's not considered "generally safe" or whatever. The only area I see concerning bans is where the author apparently is fear mongering.

Thanks.
Click to expand...


They were reporting on what all the MS Media New sources reported concerning the FDA and from what the FDA stated themselves. Nov 7th 2013.

Would you prefer Local, AP or Huff-Po? Wait, here is Reuters.....

FDA seeks to ban trans fats in processed foods due to health risks

r


FDA seeks to ban trans fats in processed foods due to health risks | Reuters

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed banning artificial trans fats in processed food ranging from cookies to frozen pizza, citing the risk of heart disease

At the other end of the food chain, the American Soybean Association said that seed and technology companies have developed soybean varieties rich in high oleic fatty acids that eliminate the need for partial hydrogenation. "Significant quantities" of such high oleic soybean oil should be in the marketplace by 2016, the group said.

The FDA's proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period in which food companies are expected to outline how long they expect it to take them to reformulate products.....snip~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom