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.

 

War on fat: California trans-fat ban goes into effect Friday

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Police state?


Try to think of it as correcting a wrong. It should have never been permitted to be put in our food products to begin with.


No; no; you got it all wrong; The sky IS falling!
I just think the government would get a lot more done without people allways screaming conspiracy every time they pass gas.

They waste too much resources trying to educate and cuttle paranoid people as it is.

D




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
People who ride bicycles get in thousands more lethal bicycle crashes each year than people who do not ride them. We should probably ban bicycles.

[edit on 12/28/2009 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


If the free market worked the way it is supposed to we would not need govt intervention.

The problem with trans-fats and other food chemicals or other chemical exposure is that the free market wont work in the proper amount of time. If i'm serving a product that kills people within a week of eating i will most certainly go out of business because people will not eat at my establishment. But if i'm serving a product that kills you in 20 years, from known illnesses(heart attacks, strokes) it is first off going to be very hard to link my product as the one that killed you and secondly how many people died from my product without anyone knowing what really lead to their heart disease.

Trans fats are banned in several European countries and the research behind them is sound but the food industry lobbies have a tight hold on the govt. Trans fats increase shelf life which equals less waste which equals more profit.

The reason that they are justified as being legal is because most product contain small amounts so they say that small amounts wont hurt you but the problem arises when most products start containing them, now your getting a little bit from the majority of the foods that you eat and it ends up being a lot at the end of the day.

Another point, the legislation says that a food manufacturer can put "0 grams of trans fats" on the outside of their product if it contains less than 1 gram per serving. So what did food manufacurers do? They lowered the size of a serving so that one serving contained less than one gram...and less than one gram can equal, .999999 grams/per serving and they can advertise "0 grams trans fats on the front of the product....BS.

There are much healthier replacement oils but the food companies are so used to the extra profits from TransFs that they dont want to go back to the old oils.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
When a company makes and sells things that Americans consume they have an obligation to produce safe products. I have no problem with the government regulating food suppliers. If there was no regulation we would be eating even more poison they we already are. Think of all the actual poisons sold as tonics and pills 100 years ago.

Yes, cigarettes kill you but it says so on the box



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Its about time.

This dhould have been into law years back.


ROCK RULE !!!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I don't mind the banning of flat out garbage food, because if trans fat is really unhealthy for you, there's no real reason not to use a better fat. Same thing with all this artificial crap that goes in food, ban it, fine with me. Some things are just unnecessary in the food supply, whether it be in a beef stew, or a slice of cake.

Now that's not to say, I want someone telling me I can't have chocolate chip cookies. It's just that the cookies need not have artificial junk in them.

Now, if they said, we are banning butter, I would argue more. I don't classify butter as one of those unhealthy things. It is a natural food.

Think about the deli meats, for example. Here we have something that might be labeled as healthy, but it's not, because of the nitrites in it. It's something that doesn't belong in the food. What if you have a loaf of bread with hydrogenated oils in it? Big pretty loaf of whole wheat bread, but it's not healthy because of the hydrogenated oils.

We should be free to eat what we want, but, why would you want to eat a messed up fat, like a hydrogenated oil? I mean, is there a special yummy-ness to hydrogenated oils?

If we made all our foods with good clean ingredients, even our sweets, we might not have as many of the health problems that we have now.

Look at our water supply. It's so messed up, we have to filter it to drink it, yet it gets a stamp of approval by the powers that be, as safe.

I do see a possible police state forming, but I think banning a hydrogenated oil may be a good thing to do. They try to ban my vitamins, that's where they get their fingers chopped off!

Troy

[edit on 29-12-2009 by cybertroy]


XL5

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
What if it were found that cell phones cause brain tumors and they banned them? What if they banned smoking, booze, fireworks, ear/headphones (ear damage), toilet paper (eco problems), bank/credit cards (fraud), bikes, cars without 6 airbags, knives, guns, violence on TV? What then? Would you want to live in a world like the one in Demolition man?

Some people like to do things that COULD be bad for them, just because you don't like butter/transfat in MODERATION does that mean everbody has to bend over? If I were to say riding your bike on the road is dangerous and should be banned, shouldn't that mean that since transfat is dangerous as well, that it should be banned as well? Should the govt. really have the right to deny its people of the choice and when does it really end, where is the line that should not be crossed?

I would love for anyone whos tried garlic bread made with real garlic butter to try the transfat free stuff and tell me that they can't tell that there is no difference. HELL, for that matter, anyone who had smarties as a kid and loved em, should try the tranfat free ones they have now! Buy a small box of them if possible, you'll feel like they stole an old friend away!

BTW, I am skinny and I eat out EVERY day of the week but I never eat to feel full nor get more and more as time goes by.

[edit], butter has tranfat and alot of people are lead to believe that ANY transfat is bad, the companies listen/follow and....no butter.

wiki.answers.com...


[edit on 29-12-2009 by XL5]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by XL5]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


Sadly it will be 'healthy practice' as defined by .... well thats the question. Consensus like global warming? More bad/politically correct science. Long ago I tried to pay attention to all that stuff about what was good and bad for you until one day I recall a big announcement that you should not eat things cooked on an open fire (bbq grill sort of thing) because the smoke created carcinogens --- wtf?
Mankind grew from the caves cooking on open fires !!!!

So now the great police state will decide what is good for us I guess that will mean no more sugar, all must aspertame and other brilliant moves.

sigh



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 

You always have a choice. Don't eat that stuff if you object, but why make others follow?
I have not eaten 'fast food' in years. Have I been awful hungry a few times and still walked right past a McD? yup I sure have.
Going hungry for a bit won't kill you. In fact I think its probably good for people to experience real hunger every once in a while.
I think its not just the transfat idea that bothers people, its the creeping control.

You can't help but ponder whats likely to be next.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Iamcamouflage
Thanks for the post, it was informative, stared

I know its all about the profit to the food companies. no surprise they lobby against any such ban. To me it is still the government interfering in our lives. I agree the ban will most likely be better for everyone's health, but how many more things are going to be ban now? It is difficult to strike the ballence between government protection and freedom. If it was all about protecting the people I would be saying nothing. I just fear more often the not it is about protecting the corporations and the rich.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


The difference being that this ban actually hurts the food corporations. They are the ones that profit from TFs. Longer shelf life = more profits.

As someone noted its not like they are banning cookies are hamburgers. They are banning one ingredient that has only been used heavily in the last 10-20 years. These same foods did not contain hydrogenated oils years ago. Its like banning lead in paints and ensuring that beef is not contaminated. You are not banning the product only the ingredient that makes it unsafe.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
There's a major difference between saying a restaurant can't serve you a large order of french fries versus serving a large order of french fries prepared with.... mercury, lead, cyanide, battery acid or rat dung.

IF the FDA was doing its job trans-fats would not be approved for consumption. For a state government to step in and over-ride what the Federal Government does/does not permit could actually be a good thing.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Hear is something else I just came across.


Americans 50 and older with heart disease are more likely to receive medication than similarly aged Europeans. Ditto stroke. Ditto high cholesterol.

Cancer and heart disease are not any old ailments. These are the leading causes of death for people 50 and older.

So if the U.S. health system does such a good job saving its middle-aged and elderly sick, why do Americans die comparatively young?

Answer: because Americans are much more likely to get sick in the first place.

And that likelihood owes very little to the health care system and a great deal to the bad choices American individuals make.

If you eat too much, exercise too little, drink too much, smoke, take drugs, fail to wear a seat belt or ignore gun safety, there is only so much a doctor or hospital can do for you.

And Americans do all those things, more than other people.

One-third of Americans are overweight. That one single fact accounts for almost 10 percent of all health care spending. At any given moment, one out of six motorists is unbelted. American children are nine times more likely to be injured in a gun accident than children in other developed countries.cnn



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Sorry to burst the bubble of the anti trans fat crowd, but the replacements for trans fat are not any better, any healthier and people that do not take care of their diet and learn what they can mix with what to make a balance nutrition will still die of hart attacks hight cholesterol and statin drugs while lower cholesterol will not keep you from having a hart attack

Anything man made and manufactured is poison to the body.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Give me a damn break. This is all a scam. I don't how care how "unhealthy" trans-fats are, it's mostly just a convenient scapegoat for fascist corporate America to have another excuse.

Remember Donald Rumsfeld and his doings with artificial sweeteners? Why was the Secretary of Defense involved in this... ?

How about most of the leadership and supervisory roles in our government regulatory agencies, like the FDA, USDA and various agricultural overseers are all former employees, investors and attorneys for the corporations and unions they're supposed to regulate. No one seems to ever grasp the extent of corruption that spreads it's talons over every facet of the food industry. Nobody ever stops to think for a moment why, this current Trans-Fat hysteria, might have an ultimate goal.

Now, thanks to extensive lobbying from the cash-strapped and lawyer infested companies we've all come to love, we now have zero oversight into what is put into our food. People would rather have artificial everything, sweeteners so chalked up on toxic chemicals that it almost boggles the mind. But when you have regulatory agencies so corrupt, that no matter what the truth is, do what thou will is the whole of the law.

Nevermind the fact that a corporation now holds patents on seeds, so farmers can virtually no longer plant crops without permission from the government. Nevermind the fact that this corporation used to deal with weaponized chemical research and the DDT fiasco. Yeah, that's right, the company that holds governmental patent control over seeds is the former manufacturer of DDT and Agent Orange. How lovely..

Kind of puts new found perspective on how a former pharmaceutical and food additive corporate chairman, Secretary of Defense Donnie Rumsfeld, would have influence on extremely questionable food additives. I'm glad he took the time out of his busy schedule with the defense of our country to make sure we all get safe food additives.

It's okay though, the government knows what's best for you. It can call a spade a spade, and ban a questionable substance. Yet it immediately switches the left hand while the right is convincing you all of it's integrity, and with that left hand, they release handfuls of new substances that will Not Ever, EVER be questioned. Once it's on the market, it's on the market forever. If by some miracle the people decide to get passionate enough to see it get regulated, the government will pull the same charade and introduce a nearly identical concoction.

There is no winning, there is no stopping it, ever. The only choice you have is to refuse to swallow the spoonfuls of ignorance that is fed to you. You have that choice, but that's the extent of your control.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
This is one of those topics someoen will find a conspiracy in no matter what.

if they remove trans fats, it is a police state. If they add them, they are trying to kill off people and take their money for medical costs.

Exactly how is it a police state to try to bring food to a more natural state? There is nothing natural or healthy about trans fats.

They are not siding with the corporations by allowign them to keep cheap garbage in there.

I give California kudos.

Some people just want to be angry about something.

As for the lead sauter used on piping: lead has been proven to affect child brain developement. This is a no brainer man.

Are you actually advocating that we keep lead in the water supply? Water has become more acidic, as it runs through the pipes or the water sits in them overnight, it leaches out the lead. Then you drink it.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
...
The ban is hailed by supporters as a way to protect diners who routinely have not been aware of consuming trans fat at some restaurants because they don't see the meals cooked or the ingredients used




so that is the restaurant problem if those fatties can't prevent themselves from eating crap food?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


I am not 100% conservative.

I am not 100% liberal.

I am smack dab in the middle, and believe LITTLE steps like this that leads us into a healthier nation shouldn't be crowned as a police state type move.

Hopefully this will not raise prices on the ingredients used for these businesses to bad (or at all), resulting in dramatic increase in menu prices, worker cuts, decreased quality by substituting more ingredients, and yadda yadda.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


It's less "police" state and more "nanny" state. Once you give the government leave to dictate what you can and cannot do (with the exception of already defined laws, like "murder is bad") you give them the choice to do it with anything. Just because you don't mind that they're banning this one substance doesn't mean it's OK. One day, they will ban something you actually care about. Rock climbing is pretty dangerous, that should probably be banned.

I don't mind so much about this, though, only because it was a state government that did it. I think states should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, because it's their own wallets that will be hurt if they make stupid decisions, as people beat feet to another state.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 





Yes, cigarettes kill you but it says so on the box


Similarly the health Nazis have tried to force restaurants to disclose fat and caloric information to the public so that people can make an informed nutritional decision.

The results were not very encouraging. The habitual junk food eaters are not interested in the math, junk food is quick and it tastes good to them period. The truth is that some people can eat junk food responsibly on occasion without suffering any ill effects but they are in the minority.

California was the first state to create stringent auto emission regulations, so they might outlaw tobacco products based on healthcare costs someday.



new topics




 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join