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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by soficrow

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.

...

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.




This is not about me. I don't eat trans fats. Never have.

This is about you advocating for dismantling regulations that protect public health, while supporting the subversion of public health agencies to protect the "corporate right to profit."




XL5

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Gas exhaust fumes are poison but we like to burn gas and every one knows the risks and does it anyway, no one would dare ban gas. Trans fatty Mc.D fries probably taste better with the trans then with a "safe" oil, Mc.D's knows this and will try fighting it someway. If govt. money is to be lost, they won't ban it or fix it. So why should THEY be the ones to regulate?

They ban motor scooters because kids who act reckless or buy unsafe scooters. They even ban electric scooter/bikes, yet old peoples scooters are legal everywhere as old folks have more power then kids. Its all about gas tax and control. The bigger rides cost less it seems, look at the cost of tiny cars (hondas, bugs and minis).

Regulation would be the right thing to do, but it costs more money and time. So they just ban out right without a second thought. There should be a limit on the excessive use of trans fat.

Seems like the movie Demolition man is becoming more real as time passes, the 3 sea shells!



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
This is not about me. I don't eat trans fats. Never have.

This is about you advocating for dismantling regulations that protect public health, while supporting the subversion of public health agencies to protect the "corporate right to profit."





How am I supporting the "subversion of public health agencies to protect the corporates right to profit" when I don't support there being any public health agencies period?

I don't think there should be any public health agency or any other agency other then what required to defend our borders from invading armies, and protecting the country from foreign powers.

As far as I'm concerned the agencies should be funded by whoever wants to donate money to them. If they have enough money then that means the public cares enough that they want it done.

Your voice doesn't stop at the voting booth. Every dollar spent is a part of your support. If you give 50 dollars to medicare, then that means you think medicare is worth that amount. You have priorities, and give accordingly.

If you think buying that new xbox 360 is more important then feeding the homeless, then go buy the 360. And what happens if everyone is selfish and greedy, not giving any money to anything? well then when they get sick, or buy a poor product, they will realize first hand why they were giving that money and the importance of such programs. Then maybe you will see them donating every week.

Get a donated supported FDA, and if you support it give money to it, and don't buy any non-FDA certified product. If enough people do that, then you see a change. They will get the FDA to certify it before putting it out so they can obtain a larger consumer base.

The best part? That the majority doesn't always have to do it. You get 35% of people who no longer buy any non-private FDA certified product and a business will really feel the loss from that. It will realize the benefits of switching, because of the consumer base they would gain from it.

If not enough people want to give money, then it wasn't important enough to the people, and they will live without it.

I live by the phrase "You get what you pay for" and I will stick to it. If 90% of the people aren't worried enough to stop buying poisonous food, then fine. That is THEIR choice, not the governments. Those 90% will eventually find out their error when they are dying of heart disease. They will have gotten EXACTLY what they deserve too.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I've just read quite a few posts here and I cannot believe people want the "choice" to consume trans fatty acids - a product that is a result of hydrogenation and one that causes cancer and heart disease.

Don't believe me though. Take a tub of butter and a tub of margarine (the margarine has hydrogenated oil and subsequently, trans-fatty-acids) and place them opended in a dark shed. Go back in a weeks time. You'll find the margarine is untouched and the tub of butter has EVERYTHING in it. Wonder why?

Oh well, each to their own I suppose...you have to die of something


Cheers

JS

[edit on 11-12-2006 by jumpspace]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
I've just read quite a few posts here and I cannot believe people want the "choice" to consume trans fatty acids - a product that is a result of hydrogenation and one that causes cancer and heart disease.




a choice you don't use won't harm anyone, will it? needless to say transfat wouldn't have come into widespread use if people were actually living up to Grimreaper's libertarian standards, but that doesn't mean much in a world that's pretty much the exact opposite of that ideal, so let's hope food banning stops right here right now.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
libertarian fits most with the original ideals of this country so yes that would be my view. You have the choice to do whatever you want, including choices that lead to your own death. Its that simple. Don't like something, don't support it. I don't like the current FDA, CIA, etc. so why am I being forced to support them?

I should be able to support what -I WANT- to support. I should be able to choose what -I WANT- to choose. The only thing I can find wrong is false advertising, where you say the product is this but its not. Like "this product has zero transfats, zero calories, and is healthy for you" then we find out that it has transfats, calories, and its not healthy. That is the kind of thing these companies should get in trouble for.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

I don't think there should be any ...agency other then what required to defend our borders from invading armies, and protecting the country from foreign powers.




The world has changed. For example, corporations have the legal right and power to negotiate with nations, and enjoy all other legal freedoms that nations enjoy - but none of the responsibilities.

In fact, most "nation states" have little power compared to the large international "corporate states" - who hold far greater economic, political and military power.

The greatest dangers to national security now come from these new corporate states. In comparison, the threat of attacks and takeovers by hostile nations is relatively minor.

So in your libertarian scheme of things, how do you propose that nations deal with corporate states? And their agenda to control entire nations economically, socially and politically?


.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
In a responsible nation of people, no corporate entity can do anything the people don't want because they are aware enough to realize no business can survive without the consumer.

As long as you buy products from these companies that are a threat, you support them. If you see them as a threat to the nation, don't support them.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

I also oppose the seat belt laws in many states. Even though wearing a seatbelt can save your life, you hurt no one when you don't wear one. This new ban is in the same arena.


Oh my God! Someone who actually gets "freedom!!!" I thought I was the only person who thought like this. Most people would say we're crazy, but the whole point of this country is that you can do whatever you want so far as it does not infringe on another's freedoms. And not wearing my seatbelt does not negitively affect anyone else's freedom to live. (Unless you are the only living legal guardian of a minor. Hey you dont want to die and leave your kids to be raised by the state do you!?!?!)

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno

Makes you wonder what this little ban is leading towards.

People are aware that not wearing a seatbelt is stupid and dangerous. And they know coffee at mcdonalds is hot. And they know fat = bad. At the very most, resaurants should have to post whether they use transfats, and let the people decide. Americans arnt gonna stop doing extreme sports, using drugs, or eating fat. Period.

(On a side note, why dont they ban things that are really harmful? Like anything made by Monsanto, like aspartamine? Oh wait, theres too much money there to ban it, oops I forgot how the world works!)

[edit on 12/11/2006 by ViolatoR]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
In a responsible nation of people, no corporate entity can do anything the people don't want because they are aware enough to realize no business can survive without the consumer.

As long as you buy products from these companies that are a threat, you support them. If you see them as a threat to the nation, don't support them.



Grimreaper - you are begging the issue and avoiding the questions.

You say taxes should be used only to support a military to protect the nation against attack and takeover by other hostile nations.

But today, the greatest dangers to national security come from corporate states - and the military is useless against hostile takeovers by corporate states.

How do you propose that nation states protect themselves from corporate states? And the corporate agenda to control nations economically, socially and politically?


.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViolatoR

I also oppose the seat belt laws in many states. Even though wearing a seatbelt can save your life, you hurt no one when you don't wear one. This new ban is in the same arena.


And not wearing my seatbelt does not negitively affect anyone else's freedom to live. (Unless you are the only living legal guardian of a minor. Hey you dont want to die and leave your kids to be raised by the state do you!?!?!)



yes it can , a back seat passenger , unrestrained can kill or seriously injure someone in a front seat -

so if you try to exercise your " freedom " to sit behind me in my car i would stop and drag you out if nessecary

i do not want some fat bastard slamming into the back of my head at 20 miles an hour , thankyou


i have seen what a mess a child in the back of an MPV made of the head rest , his fathers head and the snazy head rest video screen [ parts of which had to be removed from the fathers scalp ] . needless to say the kid died . all because he did not have a belt on .



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Just thought I'd mentioned this:

For those who want the freedom to not wear seat belts and eat trans fatty acids that are proven to kill people, have you considered as to why the governments make these rules?

The main reason is money. Where there are medical expenses involved, ie treating people for cancer, heart disease or a head injury from a car-wreck due to someone not wearing a seat-belt, then the government is usually paying in one way or another, either by the drugs/accomodation/lost production to society etc. The more people are kept out of hospitals, the cheaper and better it is for government...and people as well.

That's what it boils down to really.

On a personal level, I certainly hope my government (Aussie) bans ANY food that is a proven killer as not all people are aware as us ATS'ers and will eat whatever anyone puts in front of them.

Cheers

JS



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

But today, the greatest dangers to national security come from corporate states - and the military is useless against hostile takeovers by corporate states.


.


use a little imagination. the problem afaics is that you'd immediately face the combined might of the west AND if you were too successful, probably even China's and India's....


the reason i'm saying this is that no-one in his right mind predicted an alliance between the USSR, US, UK in the 1930s, yet that's exactly what happened. the political landscape is a potemkinian village, designed to mislead and manipulate.



Originally posted by jumpspace
Just thought I'd mentioned this:

For those who want the freedom to not wear seat belts and eat trans fatty acids that are proven to kill people, have you considered as to why the governments make these rules?

The main reason is money. ... The more people are kept out of hospitals, the cheaper and better it is for government...and people as well.

That's what it boils down to really.

On a personal level, I certainly hope my government (Aussie) bans ANY food that is a proven killer as not all people are aware as us ATS'ers and will eat whatever anyone puts in front of them.


JS


i wouldn't be so quick, sure, no-one will miss transfat, but recently, there was some fuss about vegemite, stevia (natural sweetener) is banned in the US, xylitol is prescription-only where i live and hemp is banned everywhwere! take a look at its omega-3 FA content and you'll understand why this is a huge issue for me and many others.

the connection? simple. govt's are known to make ridiculous errors and call it a policy change. i for one am unwilling to recognize they have any rights to my life and body, even if the reality is that we are simply the property of a few power mongers in business, fincance and government.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Grimreaper - you are begging the issue and avoiding the questions.

You say taxes should be used only to support a military to protect the nation against attack and takeover by other hostile nations.

But today, the greatest dangers to national security come from corporate states - and the military is useless against hostile takeovers by corporate states.

How do you propose that nation states protect themselves from corporate states? And the corporate agenda to control nations economically, socially and politically?
.


Not buy their products? How else are they going to produce profit, or even income?

Also eliminate any point for the involvement of corporations in government, and you will solve the problem. Military is useless against a corporate take over? Thats why we all have guns and its an army of fellow americans, most who have families in the nation they would be taking over.

You could get some to take over america, but alot wouldn't even go for it.

All in all, don't support the corporation and it will go away simply because it won't be able to survive. Even then, military may also be an optional expense. I just assumed since its probably the first thing I would donate to that it would still be a tax, my mistake.


XL5

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I am sure if the govt. wanted to ban beer and alcohols most every one would say no, even though it is toxic. There is just too much money with it. People know the dangers of alcohol but do it anyway, same with smoking and new drugs that haven't been fully tested.

Alot of people know the risks and take them because the reward is good enough. If eating a Mc.D burger had a 10% chance of killing you on the spot, people wouldn't eat there. They would rather have a few drinks as the risk is lower. Why not just use simulated beer flavoured drinks? Trans fat probably makes things taste good somehow and people don't see the effects right away and may never if they are active, so they take the risk.

If there was no risk what so ever, would you want to live in a world like that?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
this is so wrong it's scary. I live here and enjoy my food. I was overweight for a while and lost a whopping 80 pounds and have kept it off for 4 years now. I still eat out at restaurants and I still treat myself to all the city has to offer the stomach, just in moderation. If the city wants to keep people from getting obese and unhealthy, try edumacation first. Forcing restaurants to cook with certain ingrediants is not the answer.

Sure, the fast food chains are the real target here but there has to be a better way to control this. Perhaps limiting people to one big mac a month.


Trans-fats do not enhance the flavour of your food and a lot of experts reckon that they are worse than saturated fats. Trans-fats is a big no no with body builders I think the ban is a very good thing and hope other countries follow.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
this is so wrong it's scary. I live here and enjoy my food. I was overweight for a while and lost a whopping 80 pounds and have kept it off for 4 years now. I still eat out at restaurants and I still treat myself to all the city has to offer the stomach, just in moderation. If the city wants to keep people from getting obese and unhealthy, try edumacation first. Forcing restaurants to cook with certain ingrediants is not the answer.

Sure, the fast food chains are the real target here but there has to be a better way to control this. Perhaps limiting people to one big mac a month.


Trans-fats do not enhance the flavour of your food and a lot of experts reckon that they are worse than saturated fats. Trans-fats is a big no no with body builders I think the ban is a very good thing and hope other countries follow.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I don't know if this would be better in another thread or not, but Universal Studios has also now banned trans fats.

The early reviews are mostly positive at the Universal Studios theme park in Hollywood where the menu changed on Christmas Eve to cut unhealthy trans fats from many junk food favorites.

Twelve-year-old Jack Xu noticed something different about his french fry. "It tastes drier and not too salty," he said, then added: "I still like it."

The self-described junk food addict, an exchange student from Beijing who's visited the park before, was on a field trip this week and enjoying a basket of chicken tenders and fries.




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join