Food industry braces for Obama trans fat ban

[Pogo]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

This is all moot on this issue anyway, since nobody's "banning" anything. Requiring a food seller to justify the safety of what it puts into the public food supply can by no stretch be interpreted as infringing anybody's freedoms. To the contrary it's part and parcel of the Constitution's mandate to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

The public "Defence" is not necessarily always one against a geographically external force.

Who is we?

Why, We the People of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.

snip:
The Obama administration is expected to all but ban trans fat in a final ruling that could drop as soon as next week, killing most uses of an ingredient that has been put in everything from frozen pizza to Reese’s Pieces but since deemed harmful to human health.

The agency may create some very limited exemptions, but the ruling could force food companies to cut trans fat use beyond the 85 percent reduction already achieved over the past decade — a key piece of the Obama administration’s broader agenda to nudge Americans toward a healthier diet. (Well hell, my mommy and daddy done both passed away. thank gawd for dear Leader)




The food industry believes low-levels of trans fats are safe. Industry leaders have banded together behind-the-scenes to craft a food additive petition that will ask FDA to allow some uses of partially hydrogenated oils, such as in the sprinkles on cupcakes, cookies and ice cream. The industry hasn’t shared details, but officials maintain the uses will represent “very limited amounts.”

For more than 60 years, partially hydrogenated oils have been used in food products under the status generally recognized as safe, which does not require FDA’s approval. But since the 1990s, reams of studies have linked trans fat consumption to cardiovascular disease, causing somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 premature deaths before the industry started phasing it out.



In late 2013 the Obama administration issued a tentative determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not generally recognized as safe. The move sent shock waves through the food industry, which has already brought down average consumption from more than 4 grams per day to about 1 gram per day — an exodus largely fueled by mandatory labeling imposed a decade ago. Scores of popular products, including Oreos and Cheetos, have quietly dropped partially hydrogenated oils over the years, but it remains an ingredient in many products, including Pop Secret microwave popcorn, Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls and Sara Lee cheesecake, as well as some restaurant fryers and commercial bakery goods.

If FDA sticks to its guns in its final determination — and most in food policy circles assume it will — the agency will be taking a firm step toward pushing out more of the remaining uses of trans fat.


all of it here:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/fda-trans-fat-ban-118003.html#ixzz3aQwZLZoW

Of the things they allow in US products are many carcinogens, toxins, poisons, and things suspected to be of this sort. Banning fat or any sort doesn't make any sense given what they're still allowing. Oh well, I guess it does make sense in that someone got a payoff somewhere. Likely whoever has the non-trans-fat alternative.

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

 

[Pogo]

LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.

snip:
The Obama administration is expected to all but ban trans fat in a final ruling that could drop as soon as next week, killing most uses of an ingredient that has been put in everything from frozen pizza to Reese’s Pieces but since deemed harmful to human health.

The agency may create some very limited exemptions, but the ruling could force food companies to cut trans fat use beyond the 85 percent reduction already achieved over the past decade — a key piece of the Obama administration’s broader agenda to nudge Americans toward a healthier diet. (Well hell, my mommy and daddy done both passed away. thank gawd for dear Leader)




The food industry believes low-levels of trans fats are safe. Industry leaders have banded together behind-the-scenes to craft a food additive petition that will ask FDA to allow some uses of partially hydrogenated oils, such as in the sprinkles on cupcakes, cookies and ice cream. The industry hasn’t shared details, but officials maintain the uses will represent “very limited amounts.”

For more than 60 years, partially hydrogenated oils have been used in food products under the status generally recognized as safe, which does not require FDA’s approval. But since the 1990s, reams of studies have linked trans fat consumption to cardiovascular disease, causing somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 premature deaths before the industry started phasing it out.



In late 2013 the Obama administration issued a tentative determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not generally recognized as safe. The move sent shock waves through the food industry, which has already brought down average consumption from more than 4 grams per day to about 1 gram per day — an exodus largely fueled by mandatory labeling imposed a decade ago. Scores of popular products, including Oreos and Cheetos, have quietly dropped partially hydrogenated oils over the years, but it remains an ingredient in many products, including Pop Secret microwave popcorn, Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls and Sara Lee cheesecake, as well as some restaurant fryers and commercial bakery goods.

If FDA sticks to its guns in its final determination — and most in food policy circles assume it will — the agency will be taking a firm step toward pushing out more of the remaining uses of trans fat.


all of it here:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/fda-trans-fat-ban-118003.html#ixzz3aQwZLZoW

Of the things they allow in US products are many carcinogens, toxins, poisons, and things suspected to be of this sort. Banning fat or any sort doesn't make any sense given what they're still allowing. Oh well, I guess it does make sense in that someone got a payoff somewhere. Likely whoever has the non-trans-fat alternative.

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

Actually it is more dangerous than most of those.
But that's not the point here.

 

[Camp]

Of the things they allow in US products are many carcinogens, toxins, poisons, and things suspected to be of this sort. Banning fat or any sort doesn't make any sense given what they're still allowing. Oh well, I guess it does make sense in that someone got a payoff somewhere. Likely whoever has the non-trans-fat alternative.

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

Actually it is more dangerous than most of those.
But that's not the point here.

The dumb ass doesn't realize two of the items on his list can be dangerous because they contain trans fat.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

Actually it is more dangerous than most of those.
But that's not the point here.

The dumb ass doesn't realize two of the items on his list can be dangerous because they contain trans fat.

ZOMG!! IT's TRANSFAT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Dumbshit. Needs the government to tell you what to eat.

 

[Pogo]

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

Actually it is more dangerous than most of those.
But that's not the point here.

The dumb ass doesn't realize two of the items on his list can be dangerous because they contain trans fat.

ZOMG!! IT's TRANSFAT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Dumbshit. Needs the government to tell you what to eat.

Actually the Dumbshit would be he who trusts the foodmonger to not spike his food with chemical experiments they can't justify. Don't you think?

 

[Flopper]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can be done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it and when government acts, there is always some loss of personal freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

 

[Pogo]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

 

[Flopper]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

You have to be kidding. That is exactly how government works. Under the banner of "if it saves one life", we enacted legislation protecting abortion rights, and extended sentences for violent crimes, and created many of our gun control laws.

 

[The Rabbi]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

You have to be kidding. That is exactly how government works. Under the banner of "if it saves one life", we enacted legislation protecting abortion rights, and extended sentences for violent crimes, and created many of our gun control laws.

Bullshit.
Abortion rights dont save lives. They end lives. It was a privacy issue.
Extended sentences for violent crimes was in response to people committing murder and getting out after 18 months
Gun control laws came in the wake of high profile cases, originally the assassination of Kennedy and King. In no case did anyone invoke "if it saves one life."

 

[Camp]

Those American adults who need a Nanny Government to tell them what to eat and drink are merely frightened, irresponsible, lazy, weak-minded individuals. It's time for them to stop acting like children.

The rest of us don't want their Nanny State. We're responsible adults who value our Freedom & Liberty. You eat too much 'bad' food? Oh well, that's on you. The rest of us shouldn't be punished because you're lazy and stupid. We can't ban things just because many among us are too dumb and lazy to be responsible adults.

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? Their argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

 

[The Rabbi]

In every "free" society there must be a balance between personal freedom and protection of others. I think most of us can agree that one man's freedom should not infringe on the freedom of others. Without laws to insure this, our society would degenerate into survival of the fittest and anarchy would prevail.

The problem is determining how much should personal freedoms be limited to protect others

Wearing a set belt in an auto is certainly an infringement of personal freedom. We justified this on the basis that injury or the loss of human life effects more than just the person who dies or is injured, families, employers, and of course insurance rates are effected. Likewise, mandating health insurance and restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and unsafe foods all limit our personal freedoms but also protect others.

I think increased limitations on personal freedoms are inevitable because we are becoming far more interdependent on each other. . Also, the value of a single life has become much important society and we are willing to limit some personal freedoms just to save one life.

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? There argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

Ecept no one has shown it is "unsafe." Not any more than hundreds of other foods that if you eat tons of it you'll get sick. People have been eating transfats for 50- years. Life expectancy is higher. It is a non issue. It's not like arsenic.

 

[Harry Dresden]

LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.

snip:
The Obama administration is expected to all but ban trans fat in a final ruling that could drop as soon as next week, killing most uses of an ingredient that has been put in everything from frozen pizza to Reese’s Pieces but since deemed harmful to human health.

The agency may create some very limited exemptions, but the ruling could force food companies to cut trans fat use beyond the 85 percent reduction already achieved over the past decade — a key piece of the Obama administration’s broader agenda to nudge Americans toward a healthier diet. (Well hell, my mommy and daddy done both passed away. thank gawd for dear Leader)




The food industry believes low-levels of trans fats are safe. Industry leaders have banded together behind-the-scenes to craft a food additive petition that will ask FDA to allow some uses of partially hydrogenated oils, such as in the sprinkles on cupcakes, cookies and ice cream. The industry hasn’t shared details, but officials maintain the uses will represent “very limited amounts.”

For more than 60 years, partially hydrogenated oils have been used in food products under the status generally recognized as safe, which does not require FDA’s approval. But since the 1990s, reams of studies have linked trans fat consumption to cardiovascular disease, causing somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 premature deaths before the industry started phasing it out.



In late 2013 the Obama administration issued a tentative determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not generally recognized as safe. The move sent shock waves through the food industry, which has already brought down average consumption from more than 4 grams per day to about 1 gram per day — an exodus largely fueled by mandatory labeling imposed a decade ago. Scores of popular products, including Oreos and Cheetos, have quietly dropped partially hydrogenated oils over the years, but it remains an ingredient in many products, including Pop Secret microwave popcorn, Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls and Sara Lee cheesecake, as well as some restaurant fryers and commercial bakery goods.

If FDA sticks to its guns in its final determination — and most in food policy circles assume it will — the agency will be taking a firm step toward pushing out more of the remaining uses of trans fat.


all of it here:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/fda-trans-fat-ban-118003.html#ixzz3aQwZLZoW

Of the things they allow in US products are many carcinogens, toxins, poisons, and things suspected to be of this sort. Banning fat or any sort doesn't make any sense given what they're still allowing. Oh well, I guess it does make sense in that someone got a payoff somewhere. Likely whoever has the non-trans-fat alternative.

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

i believe the debate is "over time"....not right after you eat it....i bet you knew that didnt you?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

LOl, you all should be so pleased you voted in these tryants who can wave a magic wand and BAN things in your life. Maybe we can get a petition going to BAN ABORTIONS.

snip:
The Obama administration is expected to all but ban trans fat in a final ruling that could drop as soon as next week, killing most uses of an ingredient that has been put in everything from frozen pizza to Reese’s Pieces but since deemed harmful to human health.

The agency may create some very limited exemptions, but the ruling could force food companies to cut trans fat use beyond the 85 percent reduction already achieved over the past decade — a key piece of the Obama administration’s broader agenda to nudge Americans toward a healthier diet. (Well hell, my mommy and daddy done both passed away. thank gawd for dear Leader)




The food industry believes low-levels of trans fats are safe. Industry leaders have banded together behind-the-scenes to craft a food additive petition that will ask FDA to allow some uses of partially hydrogenated oils, such as in the sprinkles on cupcakes, cookies and ice cream. The industry hasn’t shared details, but officials maintain the uses will represent “very limited amounts.”

For more than 60 years, partially hydrogenated oils have been used in food products under the status generally recognized as safe, which does not require FDA’s approval. But since the 1990s, reams of studies have linked trans fat consumption to cardiovascular disease, causing somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 premature deaths before the industry started phasing it out.



In late 2013 the Obama administration issued a tentative determination that partially hydrogenated oils are not generally recognized as safe. The move sent shock waves through the food industry, which has already brought down average consumption from more than 4 grams per day to about 1 gram per day — an exodus largely fueled by mandatory labeling imposed a decade ago. Scores of popular products, including Oreos and Cheetos, have quietly dropped partially hydrogenated oils over the years, but it remains an ingredient in many products, including Pop Secret microwave popcorn, Pillsbury Grands! Cinnamon Rolls and Sara Lee cheesecake, as well as some restaurant fryers and commercial bakery goods.

If FDA sticks to its guns in its final determination — and most in food policy circles assume it will — the agency will be taking a firm step toward pushing out more of the remaining uses of trans fat.


all of it here:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/fda-trans-fat-ban-118003.html#ixzz3aQwZLZoW

Of the things they allow in US products are many carcinogens, toxins, poisons, and things suspected to be of this sort. Banning fat or any sort doesn't make any sense given what they're still allowing. Oh well, I guess it does make sense in that someone got a payoff somewhere. Likely whoever has the non-trans-fat alternative.

There are certainly foods and additives that probably should be banned. However for the FDA to ban a food substance, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that it's not safe. Trans fats happen to be one of those substances. The food processing industries in the US are huge and they are well represented in Washington.

Transfats are certainly safe. No one ever got sick from eating a meal containing them.

It's not about eating a single meal.

Then it's no more dangerous than cigarettes, alcohol, cheese, bacon, salt, and about 1000 other things people eat every day.

probably not....but outside of salt,none of the things you mentioned were, or are, added to the food supply...

 

[Camp]

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? There argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

Ecept no one has shown it is "unsafe." Not any more than hundreds of other foods that if you eat tons of it you'll get sick. People have been eating transfats for 50- years. Life expectancy is higher. It is a non issue. It's not like arsenic.

You have been shown links repeated on this thread . To make the comment that no one has shown trans fats, let alone man produced trans fats are unsafe is just a lie. A common, all out, total lie. Link after link has guided the interested readers to view reports and studies by the FDA, Mayo Clinic and others that leave absolutely no argument about the dangers of man made trans fats. Neither you nor any of your side of the argument have been able to provide one single study to show trans fats anr safe. Not one. That happens to be the minimum requirement the FDA demands for a substance to be allowed to be added to food. It has to be shown to be safe. So stop the lying about no proof of trans fat being harmful and come up with your study showing they are safe.

 

[Pogo]

Who is we?

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? There argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

Ecept no one has shown it is "unsafe." Not any more than hundreds of other foods that if you eat tons of it you'll get sick. People have been eating transfats for 50- years. Life expectancy is higher. It is a non issue. It's not like arsenic.

You still don't seem to grasp what you're blindly arguing.

Being on the GRAS list -- as trans fats have been up to now -- simply means the food maker says "hey we came up with this new chemical, can we put it in?" to which FDA says "is it safe?" and the food industry goes " uh-- yeah, sure" and no one has to prove squat. In other words lack of info to the contrary.

Now the issue is that there IS info to the contrary, and FDA wants to take it off that list -- which simply means the food industry would now have a burden of proof to show the substance ISN'T harmful. And if they can show that, they can spike all the trans fats they want in there.

In other words the same thing drugs have to prove before they go on the market.

What you're trying to argue then is to give Corporatia carte blanche to do whatever the fuck it wants, even with the public food supply, with no one able to question it.

You know that, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

We includes most of society. Just one fatal accident, and the speed limit drops. Just one tragic loss of life and the city council is meeting to see what can done to insure that "this never happens again". Take a look at the news today compared to 75 years ago. In WWII, we lost more Americans soldiers in a single battle than in 14 years of fighting in Afghanistan. One black man is killed by police in Baltimore which caused a riot and it's a top news story across the country for over a week. In 1921, the Tulsa riots killed upward of 175 blacks and it was hardly reported nationally. The value of human life to society today is far greater than in the past and people demand that government do more to protect it.

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? There argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

Ecept no one has shown it is "unsafe." Not any more than hundreds of other foods that if you eat tons of it you'll get sick. People have been eating transfats for 50- years. Life expectancy is higher. It is a non issue. It's not like arsenic.

You have been shown links repeated on this thread . To make the comment that no one has shown trans fats, let alone man produced trans fats are unsafe is just a lie. A common, all out, total lie. Link after link has guided the interested readers to view reports and studies by the FDA, Mayo Clinic and others that leave absolutely no argument about the dangers of man made trans fats. Neither you nor any of your side of the argument have been able to provide one single study to show trans fats anr safe. Not one. That happens to be the minimum requirement the FDA demands for a substance to be allowed to be added to food. It has to be shown to be safe. So stop the lying about no proof of trans fat being harmful and come up with your study showing they are safe.

Ywan. More unsubstantiated bullshit. People have been eating that shit for 50 years. I dont see them dying like flies from it. You'll have to do better.

 

[Camp]

NO, the argument "if it saves one life" is bullshit. No one works that way. If it were so we'd ban everything. We'd ban sports where people died or were injured. We'd ban large crowds of people. We'd ban virtually everything because life is inherently uncertain and dangerous and you cant protect everyone from everything.

Again -- all moot, since this is not a "ban".

What the fuck, don't you GET that?

Rabbi and those on his side keep attempting to frame the debate into an argument that is not being argued. No one is in a panic and no one is trying to give the government special powers that take away our freedoms. The argument is really very simple. Should a business be allowed to put additives and various substances in our food if they can not show the additive is safe for human consumption? Can they add trace amounts of a substance and be allowed to keep it a secret? There argument is that people who answer the questions with "NO" are unreasonable and unfair. They answer yes, private for profit business should be allowed to add things that may be unsafe and in some cases add things in secret. Rabbi and his ilk are demanding the law protect business and allow them to put garbage in your kids school lunch and every thing else you feed them.

Ecept no one has shown it is "unsafe." Not any more than hundreds of other foods that if you eat tons of it you'll get sick. People have been eating transfats for 50- years. Life expectancy is higher. It is a non issue. It's not like arsenic.

You have been shown links repeated on this thread . To make the comment that no one has shown trans fats, let alone man produced trans fats are unsafe is just a lie. A common, all out, total lie. Link after link has guided the interested readers to view reports and studies by the FDA, Mayo Clinic and others that leave absolutely no argument about the dangers of man made trans fats. Neither you nor any of your side of the argument have been able to provide one single study to show trans fats anr safe. Not one. That happens to be the minimum requirement the FDA demands for a substance to be allowed to be added to food. It has to be shown to be safe. So stop the lying about no proof of trans fat being harmful and come up with your study showing they are safe.

Ywan. More unsubstantiated bullshit. People have been eating that shit for 50 years. I dont see them dying like flies from it. You'll have to do better.

Better for who? Normal people understand that heart attacks and strokes are caused by blocked arteries. They know about bypass surgery and stints. They also know that trans fats are what causes these illnesses and diseases. You are just out of touch with reality.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Fuck Obama and the people who voted for him.