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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


I'm a little onfused by your thread.

You see the government bans or limits all sorts of things in food, heavy metals like lead, mercury and cadmium, pesticides, industrial chemicals and much mure. Why are you only against the ban of this one thing when it is proven just how much damage it is and the only reason it does used is because it saves the companies money.

Very small quantities of trans fat on a daily basis are incredibly bad for you. Despite rising the risk of numerous cancers, heart disease, stroke they also increase overall fat gain and especially abdominal fat gain, which can lead to numerous health conditions including diabetes.

As chemicals go this is a horrible one. Fat, real fat has it's place in the diet, real metabolic functions, trans fat however has none. I am not for a police state but the government has a duty of care in egards to dangerous chemicals.

Again if you want this chemical allowed then why not all the other dangerous ones?



Edited because once again i have the typing skills of a monkey who drank to much coffee.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


The problem is that is nothing natural on the trans fat substitutes actually this look more to me like a take over or move over to promote manufactured fat that actually are still dangerous to human consumption.

This no about replacing trans fat with natural fats this about a way to promote more manufacturing junk in the basis that is healthier for you.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem is that is nothing natural on the trans fat substitutes actually this look more to me like a take over or move over to promote manufactured fat that actually are still dangerous to human consumption.

This no about replacing trans fat with natural fats this about a way to promote more manufacturing junk in the basis that is healthier for you.


Well here in Europe the laws in most countries are better because they tend to force companies into using natural fats and not any other horrible synthetic. Dont' get me wrong there are tons of really nasty things i'd love to see banned but the food companies do have their power even here. In the UK trans fats are not banned, only controlled and limited which isn't far enough of course.

Now you may be right, maybe this is a company forcing it's product to be used. However it is a step in the right direction because anything new that is just as bad will also be banned until the companies get the message and stop putting really harmful stuff in food.

Of course if people had any sense they would stop buying processed stuff altogether and just learn to cook. If people did that then everyone would be healthier, obesity would go down, diseases of all stripes would be majorly reduced, freeing up money that is spent on healthcare, happiness would increase and in all truth i think society as a whole would improve. That to me is how important diet is.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
I actually think this trend (which started several years back in NY) is going to make a Dramatic difference in the USA

I can correlate the lowering of American educational performance directly with the rise of fast food year by year...

Poor nutrition...

But worse...

If Trans fat can clog the Arteries in your HEART, generally about the size of your thumb... what about the smaller ones running from your neck to your BRAIN, what about the capillaries IN your Brain...

A Fatty clogged circulatory system will absolutely, positively make you a freaking Idiot over time, probably starts when your really, really young too...

I completely think American general public stupidity and dietary change went hand in hand...

May they next CLOSE down 90% of the fast food industry, an American rise to a better nation can only follow...



So you are saying that everyone who is in good shape is smart and anyone that is fat is a retard? The real reason why our educational performance is so low is because our eductional system SUCKS and NOT because people are fat.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


How is it nannying removing something that shouldn't be there in the first place?

Instead of viewing it as nannying, maybe it should be: keepoing restaurants from being cheap and using less then desired prodcuts to save costs at the health expense of people.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Like another poster said, it is the cummulative effects that are so potentially devestating to the body. Since it takes such a long time to figure it out, (or so they say) they are trying to remedy the problem.

It's a good thing, and not at all in favor of manufacturers. It's in favor of the people, for once.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Mind

So you are saying that everyone who is in good shape is smart and anyone that is fat is a retard? The real reason why our educational performance is so low is because our eductional system SUCKS and NOT because people are fat.


I can't speak for most places, but I know my area's schools spend a ton of money on their sports teams, and so does the town in general. It's almost embarrassing to see that much attention drawn to sports, which ultimately fails to do a damn thing about education. It's sad, really, the amount spent on sports but nothing is done about aging textbooks or school equipment..

Tired of hearing the, "fostering teamwork and a better society" for sports, sigh. Most of the people I knew that were heavy into the school sports thing, were pretty damn malicious and unusually double-faced. I suppose that's needed in an atmosphere of Us vs. Them, black and white child politics.

Yeah well, way off-topic, but there it is.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by SyphonX]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by angeldoll
Like another poster said, it is the cummulative effects that are so potentially devestating to the body. Since it takes such a long time to figure it out, (or so they say) they are trying to remedy the problem.

It's a good thing, and not at all in favor of manufacturers. It's in favor of the people, for once.


It's really not, in favor of the people. They may make it seem like it is, but it really isn't. See, trans-fat isn't new.. this has been an ongoing topic for a very long time. The government knew about it, was ultimately not concerned at all, and decided to just slip it under the rug. (i.e. not care) Then, when various groups and loud people decided something needed to be done, the govt. took the time to put their various pieces on the board before they announce their move against it.

Somewhere, and I'm really quite nervous about it, but somewhere there is a new chemical concoction waiting to hit the food factories in order to "replace" or "simulate" existing ingredients. It will probably be just as controversial as Aspartame. Seriously, the govt. doesn't let something like this go to waste. If they are spending time and resources on what "appears to the help the people", then it is most certainly not for the people. They never let a good crisis or situation go to waste, and they do like to brag about it.

I'll give it about less than three months before we start hearing about new food additives and artificial ingredients.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


How is it nannying removing something that shouldn't be there in the first place?

Instead of viewing it as nannying, maybe it should be: keepoing restaurants from being cheap and using less then desired prodcuts to save costs at the health expense of people.


You explained why it's nannying right in your post. It's the government telling others how they can and cannot serve their customers, and telling those customers what they can and cannot eat. Yes, trans fat is essentially pointless, providing no good health benefits, but so does alcohol. So do cigarettes, so does skydiving.

Why ban one object without banning all of them? Why not ensure people have the information and let them make their own decisions? Why does everyone seem so willing and ready to let the very few make lifestyle choices for the very many?

I don't like a government telling me what I can and cannot do. I love information, however. I love knowing that the odds of winning the lottery are some 190 million to 1, which means it's essentially pointless to play (I still do, once in a great while, though). Does it bother me that so many people still do, to the tune of millions of dollars a week? Sure, but it's their own choice, and I'm not the guy to tell them they can't.

All that said, I pointed out earlier in the thread that I'm only against the spirit of this ban, not the ban itself. It's a state ban, and the states should be able to do what they will, just as the people of that state can move if they don't like it. If this were a federal ban, I'd be much more upset.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
In effect & in fact of Law, California State is forbidden to legislate something of this nature...At least, to be enforced on the general public. For certain, they could feasibly enforce it on employees in the State Government, but the People are immune by Lawful Right to such enforcement. The People are immune to this kind of legislation for exactly the same reason that the Feds can't lawfully enforce their Health Care Reform on the American Public.

The primary Right, from which all other Rights are based, is the Right to Property. A person's body belongs to that person & is not subject to external controls as to how they determine to treat their body. Sooo...If the State government tries to enforce such measures beyond its limited lawful jurisdiction, then any such Officers that support that enforcement are all subject to removal from Office.

The California State government can't even lawfully amend their State Constitution to allow for it...Because it's a violation of the Common Law (ie: the Supreme Law of the Land). Any action by any government employee on any level that violates Individual & Civil Rights constitutes an Act in Breech of Oath under Office.

I mean, really, I don't like to see people so fat that they can't even fit through doors...Because they violate other Citizens' Right to move around freely, when their sheer bulk blocks the door...

Theoretically, government can issue a lawful court order on that one extreme individual who blocks the way for others, but that's a matter on an individual basis, not enforcable on anyone else.

Still, just because Benjamin Franklin said:

I guess I don't so much mind being old, as I mind being fat and old.

...That doesn't give any level of government the authority to legislate against Rights under Law. After all, he was referring to himself, not giving government any extra Powers.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MattMulder
 


not every "fattie" eats garbage, and not every stickperson eats healthy... and actually obesity rates go UP the farther DOWN the economic scale. had nice post with the contents of last weeks foodbox my boy and i had to live on. not healthy especially for two people both recovering from surgeries. i'm a big person and a good part is meds and being pretty much bedridden. i've lost about 120 in past 14 months just from stopping some of those toxic drigs that ballooned me up to 420 something even while on a 1200 or kless cal consumption. and now i eat maybe 1800 when im able to eat, and still dropping- no diet foods nothing "sugar free" nothing "fat free" just real butter in small amounts real sugar and honey etc in small amounts or fruit for sweetening- pureed fruits are great to bake with for sweetening and replacing oils. i come from a family with a hyperobesity gene- have people in family up to 400, 500++ lbs, so my adult life staying 250-275 required very good nutrition and extreme exercise. now- i have neither but thankfully surgery results came back today and should be losing a bunch more in near future.
woohoo for the gilda radner diet, lol. just don't be son quick to judge... hate when i'm in grocery store or busstop on rare occasions when i'm well enough to be out and about and some kid says to parent- look at the fat lady in the wheelchair!- and the parent spouts nonsense like- see? that's what happens when alll you eat is pizza and cookies! or- that's because her mommy stopped at baskin robbins every time she whined. food isn't necessarily bad. some things we PRETEND are food ARE. moderation in all things, as the benedictine rule states... food god made > crap man makes even if its in lil bits...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExParrot
reply to post by MattMulder
 


not every "fattie" eats garbage, and not every stickperson eats healthy...


There are always exceptions to the rules.


and actually obesity rates go UP the farther DOWN the economic scale.


That's because poverished families tend to eat garbage, and are sick because of it.

-Dev



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Well I hope those communist pigs won't ban my favorite Clorox brand toothpaste with clorox 2, controlling pigs



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join