Blue Velvet said:There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.
People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.
Blue Velvet said:There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.
People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.
I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.Blue Velvet said:There are all sorts of prohibited substances not allowed in foodstuffs. If it can be conclusively proved that these fats are a risk to public health, then I don't see the problem with eliminating them from foods at all.
It's not a matter of the market deciding, it's a matter of *me* deciding. The government making sure via regulation that my flour doesn't have weevils in it is one thing. Standing over me to make sure I eat all my vegetables is another.Blue Velvet said:People have this weird idea that the market should decide. Show me a 'developed' economy that doesn't have strict laws regulating the production, storing and sale of food in order to protect the public health.
iGary said:Since when is it the government's fecking job to tell me what I can eat?
Eff them.
CorvusCamenarum said:I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.
Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be worse than those occurring naturally.[3]
...
The exact biochemical methods by which trans fats produce specific health problems are a topic of continuing research. For example, the mechanisms through which trans fats contribute to coronary heart disease are fairly well understood, while the mechanism for trans fat's effect on diabetes is under investigation.
One of the reasons that partially hydrogenated oils are used is to increase the product's shelf life, but they decrease your shelf life.
Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; make the arteries more rigid; cause major clogging of arteries; cause insulin resistance; cause or contribute to type 2 diabetes; and cause or contribute to other serious health problems.
iGary said:I would think that monnitrates, food dyes and preservatives would be much more harmful.
I guess my point is, at least here, in the States, there are far more pressing issues, and the less government sticks its nose into things the better. Trans fats are bad, but there are worse things.
Just my opinion. You can slap me if you want. 😎 😛
GFLPraxis said:They should be considered a poison. There is no nutritional value whatsoever, and it does a lot of damage. Nothing but harm. And further, the only reason it is used is that it is CHEAPER than the healthier alternatives. Banning trans fats does NOT mean you can't buy the same foods, just that those same foods won't do as much damage to your body (and might cost a couple of cents more to produce).
iGary said:Since when is it the government's fecking job to tell me what I can eat?
Eff them.
GFLPraxis said:Do you guys complaining have any clue what trans fats are?
They should be considered a poison. There is no nutritional value whatsoever, and it does a lot of damage. Nothing but harm. And further, the only reason it is used is that it is CHEAPER than the healthier alternatives. Banning trans fats does NOT mean you can't buy the same foods, just that those same foods won't do as much damage to your body (and might cost a couple of cents more to produce).
CorvusCamenarum said:I'm not up to date -- has it been conclusively proven yet? I'm reminded about the tiff a few years ago over eggs; first they were bad for you, then they weren't bad, then only too many were bad, etc etc. It seems like every time you turn around someone has a study on something being bad, good, or not so bad for you.
It's not a matter of the market deciding, it's a matter of *me* deciding. The government making sure via regulation that my flour doesn't have weevils in it is one thing. Standing over me to make sure I eat all my vegetables is another.
QCassidy352 said:"Progressive??" How about "paternalistic and big brother-ish??" 😱 The proper function of government is NOT to tell me whether or not I can eat doughnuts. 😡 😡 😡