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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by soficrow
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.


Well at that point they are lying. They want you to think there is simply no alternative now, so put up with it. There is, and I can vouge for it since Ive done it. Eliminating transfats just means a pretty limited food variety. Alot of stuff you are eating not for taste but for nutrience. (people always tell me I eat so quick. Well its because some of the food I eat I hate haha, I just know I need it). Fortunately the only thing I don't like is veggies. Still though thats besides the point.

The point is that there is an alternative, you just have to be willing to grin and bear the fact that you can't eat whatever you want. I don't trust the FDA much to be honest. They are corrupt so much, I know they are lying at times. Like just now, I know that theres an alternative, but they make it out like there isn't.

You wont see them say "you can switched to another food which doesn't have transfats but still has the nutrience you need" because transfat lobbyist are already in the FDA.

It doesn't mean the information isn't out there to utilize. Theres an alternative if your willing to look, take responsibility, and deny yourself ignorance. Ignorance of what you eat, what you do, and what to do next.




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
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.


yes and that makes it clearly obvious that we cannot rely on government and law to handle this. Laws only furthered their agenda.

Its up to the people to change it. If so many people are so uneducated that they cannot see what kills them, they deserve nothing less. Ignorance is only a bliss when your parents are there to safety net you when reality pushes you over.

Its time for reality to hit home. Your right, misinformation runs rampant. Reality is the ultimate educator though. When people start dying and they can't find anything else to explain why, people will learn that when they stop eating transfats, people stop getting so sick. That reality will be the educator eventually. Experience will be the educator. In an age of misinformation, thats the only education we can find that will always come out true.



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.


Like I said above, educated people are not just achived by the books they read, but the experiences they have. The reality they see can educate people too. In the state we are in, its the only thing that can save this society from collapse. Reality must kick our asses so that we rise to the occassion. They will either become responsible, stop the error that is killing them, or fail. Either way, they will have done it free and got what they had coming.

That is justice. Justice is whats fair. Getting what you have coming is fair.

If people believe they are educated and that transfats are good for you, fine. When they are dying from heart disease and you aren't, your education will have paid off and people will see that. Things will happen as they should when people make their own choices. When government does not interfer with life, but rather ensure its people that life can continue, thats freedom and thats justice.



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


No, shots misread the information that was right there. It was a comprehension error, not an information error. I won't deny that there are information errors out there. But experience is ultimately the education that will teach our generations to come...much the way it has in the past.



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




the same way a drunk driver is held accountable when he kills some one in a car accident. It was his fault, sincere or not. He didn't intend it, or want it, but it happened.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
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


I am not talking about favorite brands per se actually I have none other then milk and Oleo/margerine that is.

The point I was trying to make is I can tell the differance when it comes to oils. Do not ask me why I have no honest answer all I know is I can tell the diferance as well as taste a flavor between lets says Crisco or Peanut oil for example. I am also willing to bet even you could tell the diferance if you tried and I am positive you could tell the differance between pork fat, lard, butter, or pam for certain.

[edit on 12/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Why is it so many of you are blaming this on EDUCATION when in fact it is more the way they were brought up? I know technically one could argue that teaching proper eating habits is a form of education, but again that is not the real point. Lets face it up until the mid 60s most mothers cooked meals from scratch which is not the case today. They also do not teach cooking in schools at least to the best of my knowledge they don't.

Lets face it as hard as you try and blame it on the other guy/restaurant chain, they are not the ones who are really the ones to blame. It is the parents that should be blamed for not teaching their kids proper eating habits to start with. So lets be honest here and lay the blame where it belongs rather then attacking the average restaurants that serve fine foods as is the case in NY. What they have done here is totally uncalled for, they are dictating to others how they should cook and that is wrong.

I doubt if you owned a restaurant that you had worked hard to develop recipes that customers liked, you would not be very happy about this ban either.

I know I sure am not happy with it simply because I know now if I go into a good NY pizza Parlor the flavor will not be there simply because of some health nut/activist on the common council of NY.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Why is it so many of you are blaming this on EDUCATION when in fact it is more the way they were brought up? I know technically one could argue that teaching proper eating habits is a form of education, but again that is not the real point. Lets face it up until the mid 60s most mothers cooked meals from scratch which is not the case today. They also do not teach cooking in schools at least to the best of my knowledge they don't.

Lets face it as hard as you try and blame it on the other guy/restaurant chain, they are not the ones who are really the ones to blame. It is the parents that should be blamed for not teaching their kids proper eating habits to start with. So lets be honest here and lay the blame where it belongs rather then attacking the average restaurants that serve fine foods as is the case in NY. What they have done here is totally uncalled for, they are dictating to others how they should cook and that is wrong.

I doubt if you owned a restaurant that you had worked hard to develop recipes that customers liked, you would not be very happy about this ban either.

I know I sure am not happy with it simply because I know now if I go into a good NY pizza Parlor the flavor will not be there simply because of some health nut/activist on the common council of NY.


Ill up you one further. Its parents fault for not teaching there kids personal responsibility and independence. Do things yourself, don't depend on anybody else. People who are brought up dependent on their parents (parents that allow this to occur) are equally likely to just switch off to government when they have to move out. Nobody forced them to do it themselves and blame themselves when something goes wrong.

In my household, If I screw up, its my fault. Far as my father is concerned, at 18 I can do whatever I want (but call him to let him know Im alive and wont be home since I live in the home.) But just remember that if I mess up bad, I could go to jail for the rest of my life, and he won't be there to bail me out. Harsh, maybe so, but its well worth it.

To make children realize they need to take responsibility because they won't get away with the BS in the real world is important. You don't get off easy when you break something at home. You get your punishment wheather you meant to do it or not. You get your own job when your of age to do so. You can't go ask for money whenever you want it.

Problem is kids get let off easier and easier now. 16 years old, well hes just a kid, he doesn't know better. well thats because that kid was never taught any better since people are trying to make sure they don't hurt their feelings or some BS like that.

If the kid wants that new PS3, tell him/her to go earn it. Let them know what it means to be independent. If they don't want to work, fine, no PS3. They get what they earn, and thats something that growing up makes a teen a young adult.

But the point is, education is a main factor. Its only a main factor because they don't need to learn. They can just wait for government to come in a ban it. Let them know what is ok and what isn't. Its quite sad. Its just like people haven't grown up and still need their parents (now government).



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
grimreaper797
I agree with yoor premise, I disagree when you more or less lay the final blame on the children for not learning. I say that only because that is the way I took what you stated.

The final blame has to lie on the parents for not teaching them right from wrong or what and how they should do it. If the kids did not learn they should have been disciplined until they followed the parents instructions at least in my eye that is the way it should be, but I am old school very old school. Sorry in advance if I misinterpreted what you said.


edit to add

I do agree with you when you say if they want a PS3 go out and earn it and that should apply for most of the goodies they want. That is what I had to do, if I wanted something I had no allowance so I got a paper route and saved my money to buy what my parent rightly refused to buy, because it was all part of the learning curve.

[edit on 12/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Well I believe in choice at the end of the day. I believe parents should be a strong guide, but not a dictator.

If a child screw up, let the effects of that mistake show him why even without disipline that there are still negative effects to negative actions. The parents are to blame, but no more then the individual is to blame.

I believe that sometimes blaming the parents is just another focus shift away from the fact you are just a screw up. You messed up, but don't want to admit it so you blame the parents for not raising you right.

Sometimes people are just weak and looking for some one to blame because they are afraid of saying that they can make mistakes. They want the idea that they are better then everyone else, and that its never their fault. Sometimes its just your own damn fault, ya know.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
They want the idea that they are better then everyone else, and that its never their fault. Sometimes its just your own damn fault, ya know.


Could not have said it better myself and it says it all in a nutshell the CC of NY should not be blaming the resturants they should be blaming the people for not asking how the food is cooked.



[edit on 12/8/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

For crying out loud anything can be dangerous if you overindulge in them.

And contrary to what you claim trans fats are not poisonous, that is a label ..



Trans fats come in two varieties, the cis-bond (natural variants do occur) and the 'trans'-bond (synthetic), the latter is simply toxic (i'm not so sure about the cis vaiety either) so i will stand by my words, these compounds cause celluar damage.

www.scientificpsychic.com...

these issues aside (which i consider covered by other posters, btw), do you have any real choice to eliminate or at least drastically reduce TFA intake? since the stuff is pretty much everywhere you cannot reasonably escape it, essentially violating our precious freedom of choice.

imho, the problem is food cartels, but this cleptocracy will not upset the power structure at any cost.

PS: TFAs essential? wtf? sounds like the flourine hoax all over again.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Trans fats come in two varieties, the cis-bond (natural variants do occur) and the 'trans'-bond (synthetic), the latter is simply toxic (i'm not so sure about the cis vaiety either) so i will stand by my words, these compounds cause celluar damage.


My My that is a very big difference at first you said it was poison yet you fail to prove that contention. Why is that?

Here is what you said originally


i don't think governments should control everything, but neither should a few food chains, that resort to selling poison because it has a long shelf life.


:shk:


I now await scientific proof from a recognized health or government agency that proves it is in fact poison as you originally contended




[edit on 12/9/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
if something's causing or aggravating diabetes and is srongly suspected to be carcinogenic, chances are it should be considered toxic. if you disagree with that assessment, that's fine by me and if you find the quality of my links, then so be it.

anyways, i have the faint feeling that you're just traying to annoy me, because soficrow posted a load of pubmed links already. if they don't mention the word 'toxic' explicitly... well...ok.


A Study linking TFAs to a higher incidence of breast cancer
They found about a 40 percent increased risk of breast cancer in the women who had higher levels of trans fatty acids, Kohlmeier said. All subjects, either women newly diagnosed with breast cancer or randomly selected controls, were postmenopausal and between the ages of 50 and 74. Researchers controlled statistically for smoking, drinking, degree of overweight, age at first childbirth, family history of breast cancer, age at menarche and menopause and other habits and conditions that might bias the outcome.



40 percent is a lot, isn't it?



some will consider this source biased, but they got references for all it's worth
Research from the University of Maryland utilizing a primate model (Barnard et al 1990) is suggestive of an adverse effect on insulin receptors and insulin binding. A report from Kuller (1993) at the University of Pittsburg indicates that frequent users of partially hydrogenated vegetable fats in the form of margarine had higher insulin levels in response to glucose load.

At the National Obesity and Weight Control Symposium in New York in April 1993, it was reported that increases in dietary trans fatty acids affect muscle membranes in a manner that could trigger diabetes and which could be worsened if the person was obese.



...excaberating diabetes if not causing it outright...

At this point, an intron will help the flow...


Source
Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous: food preservatives that are toxic in concentrated amounts; a dump for toxic industrial wastes.


injury.. by chemical means... are you still there? would you count cancer as an injury (or resulting death as ... death?
) what about diabetes?



you will love that quote


Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each year... The federal government should have done this long ago


-Dr. Walter Willett,
Harvard University School of Public Health



i have an .edu site for you, too.

hsph.harvard.edu

..The French fries at the FDA's cafeteria at its headquarters in Rockville, MD, were also surveyed by CSPI and found to have negligible amounts of trans fat, thus showing that these toxic fats can be eliminated.
..




Re: shelf life
Why Have Trans Fatty Acids been Put in So Many Food Products?

No human body has any need for these man-made fats. Food manufacturers started putting them in products because they allow for a longer shelf life. Crackers, for example, can stay on the shelf and stay crispy for years in part because of the hydrogenated fats in them.




the following( last) link adresses the history of cholesterol & lipid research, how undesired results were swept under the carpet and how saturated fats were slandered. i especially like

Additionally, the research shows that the TFAs are more of a problem when the level of saturated fat is low.

because people who thought they were living extremely healthy lives by banning saturated fats from thier diets ended up gettting the shaft.

www.healthy.net...


PS: imho, the biggest problem with food bans such as this one is that we will probably see a saturated fat ban some time in the future - something i don't subscribe to AT ALL. regardless, the issue is how a few corporations managed to saturate the food market with junk. consumer choice is just one aspect.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Long you health nuts slay me you really do. If everyone listened to you guys perhaps we should ban all foods starting right now because they all can kill you if you eat them in excess


[edit on 12/9/2006 by shots]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I now await scientific proof from a recognized health or government agency that proves it is in fact poison as you originally contended


In Denmark the law states that if you feed people transfat you are liable to be imprisoned for the ill health effects it causes:


Danish Food Act - section 13, section 55(2) and section 78(3) of Act No. 471 of 1 July 1998

It shall be prohibited to sell [] trans fatty acids defined in the Annex[].

The penalty may increase to imprisonment for up to two years if the violation was intentional or grossly negligent[].

1. damage to health has been caused, or danger of such damage has been caused; or
2. a financial gain, including by means of savings, has been achieved or has been intended to be achieved for the person concerned or others.


I believe that would be a "government agency" stating that (industrially produced) trans fat is not kosher in any quantity; innately poisonous.

Paracelsus, the father of toxicology states reminds us of course that


Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison.


In that context your question is largely rhetorical. Nonetheless,

Wikipedia defines Poison:




In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause injury, illness, or death to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism.


So what quantity of industrial transfat does the FDA say we should consume?



Q: Should trans fat be eliminated from the diet?

A: No. According to experts, eliminating trans fat completely from the diet would require such extraordinary dietary changes (e.g., elimination of foods, such as dairy products and meats that contain trans fatty acids) that eliminating trans fat could cause an inadequate intake of some nutrients and create health risks.


So if we eliminate trans fat in the form of DAIRY and MEAT we may be missing essential nutrients.

But alas... the ban is NOT on naturally occuring trans fat in meat in dairy that provieds essential nutrients. The ban is on a specific class of transfat; SYNTHESIZED, PARTIALLY-HYDROGENATED VEGATABLE OIL.

NOWHERE does the FDA state that there is any nutritional reason to consume manufactured transfat. There only comments on its health effects are negative (increase in LDL, decrease in HDL, obesity, etc.)

Therefore we can conclude from a recognized government health agency (a holier than though american one nonethless) that

.: Recommended daily dose is zero.

If you consume more than zero your are only increasing the "poison to stuff" ratio of your body.

The NYC ban... like the Denmark ban... is on industrially manufactured trans fat.

...which, mr shots, I beg you provide documentation... ANYWHERE... that stipulates the nutritional benefits of the supposed FOOD that industrially produced transfat is.

Food is the means by which humans provide nutrition, correct?

-----------

Now then, I am an anarchist at heart... In my heart of hearts, I am a hermit without need for government because I too am a believer that each man is morally responsible for his own actions.

Alas, government exists... and is recognized by the masses to be an authority. Therefore what propoganda does come from the government is acted upon by my brothers and sisters.

And until recently world governments have been ignorant to the dangers of industrial transfat and therefore saw no reason to ban it. This is largely because it has been around for only 100 years and the long term effects of daily consumption are only now becoming apparent.

Government, standing silent on the issue of transfat, allowed industry the right to loudly proclaim on every billboard, magazine ad, internet flash ad, tv ad, and every other form of propoganda we (and our civilized children) are exposed to each passing day that YOU SHOULD consume transfat. And my brothers and sisters became convinced of this falicy because they trust (have Faith) in their nation.

To purposefully mislead my brother is sin.

If government is the wheel rolled by great kings to provide order to a just society then that wheel should be moving in a direction of benefit to the people of the society.

So to the subject of being morally responsible for our actions.

The consequence of government (that is We the People) standing silent on the issue of transfat has been ill health effects for the people and profits for the shareholders of the manufacturers (procter and gamble... our best buddies) of transfat.

Profit or People?

Now for those of you proclaiming that food is more than nutrition... it is a means of providing pleasure...

Just darn opposed to The Man telling you not to eat something...

Well, the corner store junkies among you, daily purchasing marlboros and old milwalkee, should be familiar with:

From Wikipedia; excise tax:



A reason why the governments state that excise taxes should exist is to internalize external costs. For example, the alcohol excise tax could be used to pay for the treatment of alcohol-caused diseases.


So... if we wish for our people to have the supposed freedom to gorge themselves like romans on transfat... perhaps we should look at instead of an outright ban... a national excise tax to pay for the inevitable consequences.

One day we may have a liposuction slush fund so grand that not only can we binge and purge like Rome... but binge, purge, and suck!

A Brave New World it is,

I am,

Sri Oracle

Do you remember the day in business school we learned externalizing techniques?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The basic presumption here is that the Govt knows whats best or that actually banning trans-fats is going to result in lower consuption of transfats! Which I doubt seriously.

I think if I want to eat only hydrogenated fats then it is my right that I put it into my body. The govt doesnt pay for my medical insurance and neither do they have a free burial service! If I pay my medical then I can choose to do what I want with my medical condition. Be it hydrogenated fats or anything else. Even if I want to eat a bucket of lard that should be my choice to get it where I want. The Govt has no right or business to create legislation that over ride my personal liberties. All the hippies that want to continue to live a pathetic exsistence day in and day out for all eternity are free to live in a polution free, fat free, MSG free, organic lives in their own homes. They cannot decide what is good in their opinion and thrust their degenerate beliefs upon others.

This is what happens when a region gets super saturated with liberals. New York is just such a place, devoid from any sense of reality or connection with the real world. There needs to be a forced migration of populace out of New York so that both the cities body and soul are cleaned up. If they can agree to such legislation there is surely something wrong with them !



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
these issues aside (which i consider covered by other posters, btw), do you have any real choice to eliminate or at least drastically reduce TFA intake? since the stuff is pretty much everywhere you cannot reasonably escape it, essentially violating our precious freedom of choice.


OH BS! you can choose to either buy stuff with transfats in it, or choose to not buy it or make it yourself. PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Most people are too LAZY and such to bother with cooking it themselves, or buying non transfat food.

Its your choice to eat transfat foods, no one is forcing you. Stop supporting it by not buying and transfat foods.

It doesn't violate your freedom of choice. You have a choice, you just aren't getting what you want. There is a big difference. You have the choice between limited food options, or large food options with transfats. That is YOUR choice. The same way smoking or drinking is.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
If you drink a bottle of cleaner fluid, do you get to ban cleaner fluid when these morons that drank it get sick? NO. What happens is those dumb people get sick, sometimes die, and thats their own damn fault.

Yea we know its in the food, and we know its bad, even poisonous. SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU EATING IT!?!?!? Anyone that eats that crap DESERVES exactly what is coming to them. If they don't know, it because they are too lazy or see it as too much an inconvenience to go find out. I have some pretty poor friends, and even they know whats in this still, and they have the means to find out too.

The cold hard truth is, if your too lazy to find out whats in the food you eat, or you eat poisonous food you know is poisonous, you get what you got coming to you.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
an excise tax on fast food? Well natrually I am against it, but I wouldn't go fighting it as its just a tax on what Im already not going to be paying for. Anyone that smokes and is willing to pay the extra tax, fine.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797


It doesn't violate your freedom of choice. You have a choice, you just aren't getting what you want. There is a big difference. You have the choice between limited food options, or large food options with transfats. That is YOUR choice. The same way smoking or drinking is.



you have the choice to never eat in restaurants, fast-food joints or buy processed foods, you'll have to resort to preparing everything from scratch even though you'll still be hard pressed (depending on country of course) to find decent cooking oils.


i suppose you have the choice, if you're willing to sacrifice enough time, effort and money, but that's like saying you have freedom of speech, you'll just have to live with the repercussions (including confinement and interrogation or even premature death ! but hey you knew what you were doing, right?)

PS: health nut or not, you will understand that i prefer calling a spade a spade, won't you?

[edit on 10-12-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Grimreaper -

The FDA is responsible for regulating food safety. It admits trans fats are poison, but in order to support industry, allows trans fats to be produced and distributed.

Consequently, the public assumes trans fats are safe, or at least, "not that bad."

In fact, the FDA is using its powers to preserve, protect and advocate the 'corporate right to profit.' Without telling the public that that is its mandate.

If you want to promote individual freedom and responsibility, fine.

But if you do not also advocate dismantling the FDA totally, and neutralizing its power to protect and promote the 'corporate right to profit' - then you are being hypocritical. At the least.






posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Grimreaper -

The FDA is responsible for regulating food safety. It admits trans fats are poison, but in order to support industry, allows trans fats to be produced and distributed.

Consequently, the public assumes trans fats are safe, or at least, "not that bad."

In fact, the FDA is using its powers to preserve, protect and advocate the 'corporate right to profit.' Without telling the public that that is its mandate.

If you want to promote individual freedom and responsibility, fine.

But if you do not also advocate dismantling the FDA totally, and neutralizing its power to protect and promote the 'corporate right to profit' - then you are being hypocritical. At the least.





No I don't believe the FDA has any reason for existance. People should be responsible for finding out the quality of their food. If they get sick from the food and there was no warning label, then its the companies fault. If there are ingredients that are POISON (like transfats), and the people still eat it, its THEIR fault.

No one is forcing you to eat there. You want amazing meals but want to be picky as to what goes into them, then make them yourself. You can also find a local trustworthy resturant. I have found mine and its the only place I eat at outside of my own home.

I check to see whats in everything I eat, and look up every single chemical ingredient before I do so.

If some one can prove they don't have the means to do this, as in they have no internet, no money for the internet, or even a way to get to a library, then maybe they have a case.

Other then that, it's your own fault if you eat food that has poison in it. If I went to McDonalds, found out what was in the food, then still ate it, its my fault. It's like signing a waver, I assume responsibility.

Unless some one is literally forcing you to eat McDonalds and such, you have no basis for arguement. Its their right to put whatever they want in the food, and its your right to not eat there.

If they are putting stuff in there, but wont tell you what they put in their food, don't eat there. If they tell you something that is untrue like 100% free of transfats, yet we find transfats in the food, we dissolve the food place selling it.

No one is forcing you to do anything, its just a matter of priorities. If you think its poison, why the hell would you eat there? There shouldn't need to be a ban to have common sense.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join