It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYC Bans Trans-Fat

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


I EXPECT my government to protect me from exposure to poison. At least in my food, if not prescription pharmaceuticals.



Again you use the word posion when you know darn well it is not:shk: The FDA even says you should eat some trans fats, why are you ignoring that fact??




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Sorry shots Ive done some research into food science and what is best. I must say grains are practically useless. They say its to give you energy. Carbs are just sugar not broken down yet. If you eat extra protein, it will balance out and you won't need carbs at all.

I go on a very low carb diet, and it definately works for me. Protein and such is the best way to go personally. Aside from the calcium, vitamin c, and the two others I cannot remember the name of, I stick with fish most the time.

Look up all the vitamins and such the body needs. Protein is used for muscles and such, but if you lack sugar, it will take protein and convert it for energy. So instead of eating so many carbs, just cut the carbs and eat some more protein.

In a sense it is the akins diet.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
im starting to feel shots may be ignoring me.

It doesn't say you should eat some transfats. It says food that has transfats in them sometimes may be needed because of vitamins and such. It has nothing to do with the transfats though. The transfats are worthless. Its just in SO many things now, its hard to avoid.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

I EXPECT my government to protect me from exposure to poison. At least in my food, if not prescription pharmaceuticals.

But it ain't happenin.' Why? Cuz industry lobbyists get to carry the ball. Every time.



I don't. I expect my government to ensure I have tyhe freedom to speak out against these companies, and protest their products. I expect my government to protect my rights to do these things so that if enough people care they will have the right to protest it too. If enough people protest it, the transfats will go away or the business will fail.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

The New York City Board of Health this week banned the use of trans fats by restaurants. The decision is directly traceable back to the “research” of Harvard University’s Alberto Ascherio and Walter Willett, the promoters-in-chief of trans fats hysteria.


A little more insight on where the NYC board of health got their research. Looks like a bunch of doomsday junk science wasting government funds to me.


New Yorkers could, for example, see restaurants banned from serving potatoes, peas, peanuts, beans, lentils, orange juice and grapefruit juice. Ascherio-Willett reported an increase in the risk of heart disease among consumers of these foods in the Annals of Internal Medicine (June 2001). Although none of those slight correlations were statistically meaningful -- and, in all probability, were simply meaningless chance occurrences -- a similar shortcoming didn’t seem to matter to the Board when it came to their trans fats research.

The Board’s trans fats ban has dramatically lowered the bar for scientific proof. It’s such a sad spectacle that the Board of Health ought to be renamed the Bored of Science.


I think we are really missing the big picture with this. It's not about the healthfulness of these foods, but our every leaning towards socialism.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I stick with fish most the time.


That's good except all the mercury you're putting into your body. Where is the government on that one?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
It says food that has transfats in them sometimes may be needed because of vitamins and such. It has nothing to do with the transfats though.


Obviously the FDA disagrees with since they say they may be needed for vitamins.

The answer is simple eat all fried foods sparingly, is that so hard to understand?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Again you use the word posion when you know darn well it is not:shk: The FDA even says you should eat some trans fats, why are you ignoring that fact??


my freinds wife is now taking waifarin < for a serious circulation disorder > that is an active ingredient in many rat poisons

no waifarin , she could die , an overdose and she wil die


what was the point again ?

PS - being able to tell if your wife has swutched from your favourite brand which you eat every day , to a rival you dislike , is not the same as being able to discern what a restaurant is cooking food with - beyond your control

as you have no datum to base any " taste difference " on



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Fact: The Food and Drug Administration warns against totally eliminating trans fats from your diet, because they are present in so many foods that provide essential nutrients.


from your quote.

you can clearly see they say the foods have the nutrients, not the transfats they make them with. simple misunderstanding.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The answer is simple eat all fried foods sparingly, is that so hard to understand?


You do realize that this is the USA? The obese USA more so. For many people here it is hard to understand. I always feel like throwing up when I see a 500 lb person going into McDonalds. Alot of people in the USA are so uneducated that they don't know how to eat properly. Don't get me wrong, I'm no health nut or anything but I also don't eat McDonalds 10 times a week either. Like you said Shots, everything in moderation. But in glutony USA, that's hard to come by.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
and who should pay for that griff? They should. If they want to be uneducated, they should realize it comes at their OWN expense. Not mine from taxing me for healthcare, not anyone else for having the government ban it because they are too ignornant

They want to be uneducated, let them pay the price, because you get what you deserve. Don't embrace ignorance by babying it with government regulations. Knock it down with a dose of reality.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
and who should pay for that griff? They should. If they want to be uneducated, they should realize it comes at their OWN expense. Not mine from taxing me for healthcare, not anyone else for having the government ban it because they are too ignornant

They want to be uneducated, let them pay the price, because you get what you deserve. Don't embrace ignorance by babying it with government regulations. Knock it down with a dose of reality.


I thought you were actually arguing for this trans fat ban? From your response here, it sounds like you aren't? BTW, I just jumped into this thread without reading most of it so I could be mistaken.

[edit on 12/8/2006 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
No Im the third position. I know the stuff is bad, and I dont want the government to ban it. To me if a person doesn't want to sacrifice eating at a place, or something like that to stop transfats from being used, he should suffer the consequences when he eats the damn food.

Your too lazy to find out whats in the very food you eat, fine, you can pay the consequences then. Its nobodies fault but your own that your eating something thats bad for you. The only law there should be is false advertising. If they say 0 transfats and don't list it as an ingredient, yet it is, they should be perminately shut down. A harsh punishment for anyone who dare break this law. Its not only dangerous to false advertise ingredience but completely outragous. God forbid they don't list something and some ones alergic. They had no idea because false advertising.

If a place doesn't list it at all, don't eat there. They will suffer the lost business because they didn't provide the list.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I agree totally Grimreaper. My mistake for assumming you were for the ban.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
.

"Trans fat" is the nice new phrase to describe "toxic oil," as someone mentioned above.

Toxic oil hit the headlines in the 1980's - linked to deaths, and vascular and neural lesions. Basically, toxic oil or "trans fatty acids" kill by destroying the blood vessels and neural networks. Survivors are left with chronic incurable disease.

Here's a bit of the background science from PubMed:



PubMed

The toxic oil syndrome.

Hundreds died and thousands were poisoned by rapeseed oil adulterated with aniline and sold illegally in Spain in 1981. The clinical manifestations, now known as the toxic oil syndrome, include pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular hypertrophy plus widespread vascular and neural lesions in other organs. Many of the late deaths ended with a scleroderma-like illness. Because scleroderma involves the heart, an examination was made of the small and large coronary arteries, the neural structures, and the conduction system from 11 victims dying with the toxic oil syndrome. Dense fibrosis, atrionodal junctional hemorrhages, and cystic degeneration of the sinus nodes were present. Small and large coronary arteries exhibited focal fibromuscular dysplasia and a proliferative cystic myointimal degeneration. This latter abnormality was associated with sloughing of the inner wall and embolization of the detached fragment downstream in the same coronary artery. Every heart had many degenerative lesions within nerves, ganglia, and the coronary chemoreceptor. Based upon observations by others with experimental feeding of rapeseed oil containing either high or low erucic acid, it is suggested that this oil must remain a major suspected cause of the toxic oil syndrome, particularly in conjunction with some as yet unexplained facilitative influence by oleoanilids. If this is so, it is important to reexamine the widely recommended use of any rapeseed oil product as a suitable food for humans or animals.

***

PubMed Link

Cardiac abnormalities in the toxic oil syndrome, with comparative observations on the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome

Early in the course of studies of the Spanish toxic oil syndrome it was recognized that vascular lesions were a major problem, most logically attributable to endothelial damage by the toxic oil. However, most clinical attention has been directed to the pulmonary complications and the evolution into a scleroderma-like illness later. In this study of 11 victims of the toxic oil syndrome careful postmortem studies of the coronary arteries and conduction system and neural structures of the heart demonstrated major injury to all those components of the heart. Obliterative fibrosis of the sinus node in four cases resembled findings in fatal scleroderma heart disease, and in eight the cardiac lesions resembled those of lupus erythematosus. The more impressive pathologic features involved the coronary arteries and neural structures, which were abnormal in every heart. The arterial disease included widespread focal fibromuscular dysplasia, but there was also an unusual myointimal proliferative degeneration of both small and large coronary arteries in five patients, four of whom were young women. In two hearts, portions of the inner wall of the sinus node artery had actually detached and embolized downstream. Coronary arteritis was rarely found. Inflammatory and noninflammatory degeneration of cardiac nerves was widespread. Fatty infiltration, fibrosis and degeneration were present in the coronary chemoreceptor. In most respects these cardiac abnormalities resemble those described in the eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome caused by an altered form of L-tryptophan. In both diseases there is good reason to anticipate more clinical cardiac difficulties than have so far been reported, and even more basis for future concern, especially relative to coronary disease and cardiac electrical instability.




Aniline is the key chemical linked to toxic oil syndrome and trans fatty acid pathology - it is a byproduct of the hydrogenation process that makes "trans fats."

Ie., see:

Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease.

FYI - As also noted above: rapeseed oil, which caused the toxic oil syndrome, has been renamed "canola oil" to obscure the underlying safety issues - and keep the product on the market.


Yet another case of putting profits before people.





[edit on 8-12-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
sofi nobody is arguing how bad it is for you, or that people shouldn't eat it.

What I am arguing is having government baby ignorance like it something we should embrace. You don't cure ignorance by making a ban so they don't know the effects, and don't have to take responsibility.

If you care about the future of this country, you will say no to government regulation simply because it embrances irresponsibility and ignorance. Those are the key factors to the destruction of our society as it currently stands. Ignorance runs rampant now, and it will only get worse if we baby people like they are 3 year olds.

They are responsible for themselves. If they don't want to find out whats in the food they eat, let them see the consequences. I am against healthcare funding as well. I will give money to every single cause I think is worthy, rather then pay that money to healthcare.

If I had the healthcare money back, I would donate some to diseases and disorders where they weren't responsible for it. I will not pay for somebodies hung surgery because he smoked for 25 years. Thats HIS fault, and I shouldn't be forced to do ANYTHING about it. If I decide I want to help, I will, and thats my choice...NOT the governments.

You see what Im arguing here?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
If I had the healthcare money back, I would donate some to diseases and disorders where they weren't responsible for it. I will not pay for somebodies hung surgery because he smoked for 25 years. Thats HIS fault, and I shouldn't be forced to do ANYTHING about it. If I decide I want to help, I will, and thats my choice...NOT the governments.


Question Grimreaper. Do you live in the USA? I'm not aware that I pay for someone else's healthcare. I pay for my own (along with my company). Or do you mean medicare and such?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Again you use the word posion when you know darn well it is not:shk: The FDA even says you should eat some trans fats, why are you ignoring that fact??





Why are you promoting disinformation?

In fact, the FDA says trans fats are NOT beneficial.

And it says trans fats are so integrated into food production that trying to eliminate them would result in the loss of other essential nutrients. Which is a statement designed to pacify industry, and 'protect the economy,' NOT public health.

From the FDA website on Trans Fat Nutrition Labeling



Q: Are all fats the same?

A: Simply put: no. While unsaturated fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) are beneficial when consumed in moderation, saturated fat and trans fat are not. Saturated fat and trans fat raise LDL ("bad") cholesterol. Therefore, it is advisable to choose foods low in both saturated and trans fats as part of a healthful diet.








posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Question Grimreaper. Do you live in the USA? I'm not aware that I pay for someone else's healthcare. I pay for my own (along with my company). Or do you mean medicare and such?


ah yes, my mistake. I honestly don't want to pay for anything like that. Social security, medicare, etc. I earn my money, and will invest it how I want.

I don't need some one to tell me how much money Im going to put in the bank like its christmas time and I'm 8 years old again. Thats something my parents did after I got my christmas money when I was like 8. "Ok you got 110? we will put 70 in the bank then." I mean come on, we are earning our money and its our money to use how we want. If we are irresponsible and spent it all, ITS OUR FAULT!!!

When people start to realize there is no safety net everytime you mess up, this nation will start to make a real turn around. People won't choose to be educated and responsible, they will have to be if they want to make it in the real world. Thats how it SHOULD be.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
sofi nobody is arguing how bad it is for you, or that people shouldn't eat it.

What I am arguing is having government baby ignorance like it something we should embrace. ...

If you care about the future of this country, you will say no to government regulation simply because it embrances irresponsibility and ignorance. Those are the key factors to the destruction of our society as it currently stands. ...

You see what Im arguing here?



Yes, I see what you are arguing. I agree in general theory, but disagree passionately in practice, and in specific application.

We have replaced the world's monarchies with corporatocracies - then protected them absolutely with national and international laws - they now are legally compelled to put profits before people.

Our ruling corporatocracy also controls our media and education systems, as well as our regulatory systems - and lies to us, misinforms, disinforms and underinforms us - systemically and systematically.

For example, such abuses lead shots to claim sincerely but erroneously that the FDA recommends trans fat consumption.


Under these circumstances, how can we hold any individual accountable for their ignorance?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join