BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[ClosedCaption]

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

 

[martybegan]

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

How long did Ronald Reagan live?

Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.

P.S. He wasn't a smoker. He just played one on television.

Communist turds like you are the only ones who call it "trickle down," and I seem to remember the economy growing at rates of over 9% per quarter during Reagan administration. How fast is it growing now? Who's damaging it?

"Establishing a base for the plutocracy" is liberal code for "stop looting people who work hard."

I don't know if you've noticed, but movements and new policies take several years to gain momentum, especially in large economies. Reagan's policies started to kick in in the early 1990s when the country started to feel the effects of millions of jobs going overseas. Nothing tricked down, it just went out.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"

You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that

 

[bripat9643]

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

So what? Sugar is harmful. Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful. If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Quote: "While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States, current intake remains a significant public health concern," ...

Once again I have to ask WHY? Why does the government feel it needs to ban something? Look at the first half of that quote. An informed public and the free market are working yet the government still wants to ban trans fats. By the logic they use (trans fats ..."remain an area of significant public health concern") then why don't they ban cigarettes? Our government is ban happy.

They have to justify their existence and wasting of our tax dollars somehow.

 

[Contumacious]

My doc told me to steer clear of trans fats also.

What did your doctor say about tyranny, is is also bad for your health?

How about the federal government's foreign policy, is it bad for our health? Ask the relatives of the 3000 who did on 09/11.

How about the massive domestic paramilitary force, is it bad for our health? Ask the surviving Davidians.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Long enough to significantly damage the economy by creating the base for a plutocracy and calling it the "trickle down" theory.

P.S. He wasn't a smoker. He just played one on television.

Communist turds like you are the only ones who call it "trickle down," and I seem to remember the economy growing at rates of over 9% per quarter during Reagan administration. How fast is it growing now? Who's damaging it?

"Establishing a base for the plutocracy" is liberal code for "stop looting people who work hard."

I don't know if you've noticed, but movements and new policies take several years to gain momentum, especially in large economies. Reagan's policies started to kick in in the early 1990s when the country started to feel the effects of millions of jobs going overseas. Nothing tricked down, it just went out.

What policy of Reagan's caused any jobs to go overseas? One thing I've noticed is that liberals pull their economic theories out of their ass. They don't know the slightest thing about real economics.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Then you don't have to eat it. That's your personal choice. That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.

I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?

 

[paulitician]

This is only the beginning. Soon, Obama and his IRS Henchmen will be dictating what your diet will be. Better get on that Obamacare folks. The IRS is watchin.

 

[martybegan]

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"

You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that

I've read plenty of studies in general, I don't blindy trust them the way progressive lemmings such as yourself tend to do.

 

[Pogo]

If trans fats got you high, progressives would want to ensure it was specifically legalized

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

You're actually trying to equate trans fats with freedom of religion?

Are you completely insane??

Marty, you're playing this intp way WAY more than it is in the cause of Randian blind ideology. All the FDA is doing is proposing to remove trans fats from the GRAS list. ALL of the additives in your food had to make the GRAS (Generally Recognizes as Safe) list. That is nothing new, and considering crap (such as Aspartame) that have already gotten through that filter due to lobby money and the DC revolving door, FDA doesn't do enough.

Again, you're trying to stand up for Big Food's "right" to poison its product. That is insane. No such right exists. You can sell whatever food product you can come up with; you don't have the right to make it toxic.

Is this what you want for us, just so you can prostrate yourself before the holy Ayn Rand?
How Aspartame became legal

Equating freedom of religion with freedom to inject foods with trans fats... unbelievable

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

So what? Sugar is harmful. Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful. If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.

That's like saying a clown and an assassin are harmful. To quote Meek Mills "There's levels to this shit"

 

[Pogo]

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Then you don't have to eat it. That's your personal choice. That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.

I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?

That's an insane argument. You could use the same logic to abolish the FAA and declare, "hey, if you don't like planes flying around without supervision, don't fly in them".

Makes no sense. Part of the role of government is the security of its citizens. And that means from within as well as without.

 

[paulitician]

Eventually, Big Brother will dictate all Americans' diets. HALLELUJAH OBAMACARE!!!

 

[Pogo]

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

So what? Sugar is harmful. Excess fat is harmful. White rice, white flour and potatoes are all harmful. If you banned everything that was "harmful," 80% of the items in the grocery store would disappear.

Go back to your ignorance hole, Finger Boy. Those things are not "harmful" inherently. Using them to the exclusion of whole foods, or in excess, might be. And there is no food that is made with the ingredient "excess fat".

When you don't know what you're talking about it's best to STFU. For you that should be easy- it covers almost everything.

 

[martybegan]

If your If was a Fifth we'd all be drunk.


There is no harm in banning something that is harmful

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

You're actually trying to equate trans fats with freedom of religion?

Are you completely insane??

Marty, you're playing this intp way WAY more than it is in the cause of Randian blind ideology. All the FDA is doing is proposing to remove trans fats from the GRAS list. ALL of the additives in your food had to make the GRAS (Generally Recognizes as Safe) list. That is nothing new, and considering crap (such as Aspartame) that have already gotten through that filter due to lobby money and the DC revolving door, FDA doesn't do enough.

Again, you're trying to stand up for Big Food's "right" to poison its product. That is insane. No such right exists. You can sell whatever food product you can come up with; you don't have the right to make it toxic.

Is this what you want for us, just so you can prostrate yourself before the holy Ayn Rand?
How Aspartame became legal

Equating freedom of religion with freedom to inject foods with trans fats... unbelievable

Transfat is not toxic in the doses found in normal food. Please try to use the right nomenclature.

And its not freedom of religion. Its the logic of:

You have a choice, follow a religion and go to heaven, don't follow it and go to hell. Now you have to figure out if the religion is correct in assuming there is a heaven or a hell. One line of thought is follow the religion if it isnt too bad, and you are covered, if there is a heaven or hell, you go to heaven, if there is no heaven or hell, you really arent that worse off.

Here you have a choice, ban trans fats or don't. We have an idea they are harmful, but its not to the point where we know people that eat them are going to die for sure, but lets hedge our bets, and if we are wrong? Well to some people it no loss, but to others, it a loss of freedom in general to nitpicky government regulations that have no consitutional muster.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Then you don't have to eat it. That's your personal choice. That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.

I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?

That's an insane argument. You could use the same logic to abolish the FAA and declare, "hey, if you don't like planes flying around without supervision, don't fly in them".

No, it's absolutely nothing like that at all. Me flying around without supervision can endanger others. Me eating food with trans fats in it, does not.

 

[Camp]

Thats the same line of logic that states you might as well follow a religion just in case its actually true. No harm there, right?

Trans fats MAY be harmful to PART of the population that OVERUSES them.

No It IS harmful open a book sometime

Then you don't have to eat it. That's your personal choice. That doesn't give you or some bureaucrat trying to justify his job the right to make that choice for others.

I thought people on the left were all about choice, or is it only when you want to kill your unborn child?

That isn't really accurate. Products can cantain small amounts of trans fat and legaly be labeled as having 0 because the amount is small. The problem is that you could be consuming several products on a regular basis or even daily which amounts to what you believe to be an unhealthy practice that you thought you were avoiding. In addition you are subject to the honesty of restaurants who may claim they don't use this ingredient. You are dependent on the owner, the management and even the cook to insure your health and choice as to what you consume.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Studies purporing something possibly increasing the risk of something is not "harmful", its "may be harmful"

You've obviously never read one study on it if you believe that

I've read plenty of studies in general, I don't blindy trust them the way progressive lemmings such as yourself tend to do.

That's great! Got anymore excuses on why youre ignorant. You're not a rebel for ignoring information. That just makes you willfully ignorant. You don't even have a reason you don't believe them lol.