BREAKING: FDA to ban trans-fats

[daveman]

"Force us to go along"?
Are you a food company, Dave?

No?

Then it doesn't affect you.

Duh.

If this were the only issue on which progressives were trying to legislate their agenda, you'd have a point.

However...

However what?

Are you a food company or aren't you? And if you are, go ahead... make the case.

--------------------




No trans fats are required to make fries. Irrelevant.




-------------------------------------

Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.

Why? That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.

Isn't it?

See first post above. If you're a food company, go ahead, make your case that your trans fats should NOT be required to test for safety. If you're not, make the case for what you're being deprived of. You have 58 days.

Throughout this whole thread, you've completely failed to understand the point.

The only question remaining is: Is it on purpose or not?

 

[Pogo]

Thalidomide was a drug, not a food. And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job. The same job it's dong here.

Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for? I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".

No kidding, Mr. Obvious.

But in case you didn't know, this thread is about the F part.

Dumbass.

But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"? Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.

Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older. It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons. It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle." It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians. Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;[3] Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;[4] and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[5] It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,[6] and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.[7]

This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently. It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."[8]​

Looks like we're both wrong. I can admit it. Can you?

I already read that site. I didn't say Ford was the first, did I? Careful how you word things.
What else I read said that the false Jefferson attribution came from a Jim DeMint speech. Always vet your quotes.

The thread is supposed to be about the F part. That would be peachy with me. But some wags here insist on defining FDA as "gubbamint overreach". So I pointed out what that "overreach" of that same agency has accomplished, one of which was keeping Thalidomide at bay while it poisoned the rest of the world. Had the gubbamint nihilists had their way we'd have been at its mercy.

Too bad that's such an inconvenient reality huh?

And btw that's Captain Obvious, thank you very much.

 

[Vox]

This trans -fat ...harmful or not... I am will never stop eating. Never.

Hot chips.

and who on earth told you you need trans fats for those ?

 

[daveman]

Still waiting for anyone to make the pro-trans fat case.

Why? That's not the issue, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.

You have to understand that in the leftist mind a cut of any part of a proposed increase in spending is a spending cut and, if it is in a program with a noble sounding title, is a gutting of the budget and tramples on the poor.

Any suggestion that Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare needs to be done differently is interpreted that the conservatives intend to get rid of those programs entirely.

Any suggestion that there is overreach by the EPA or a stupid energy policy, we eeeeeeevul conservatives are PROMOTING dirty air, dirty water, contaminated soil, and polluted oceans.

Any suggestion that we should secure our borders and regulate immigration is proof that we hate Mexicans.

Any criticism of the President is racist and we hate him because he is black.

So does it really surprise you that us wanting to retain our unalienable right to live our lives a we choose and resisting unnecessary government interference and overreach will be interpreted, by the dedicated leftists, as supporting thalidomide babies and wanting to poison people?

Not at all. Despite their claims to be nuanced, independent thinkers that can see all sides of an issue, they really are only binary thinkers.

This is undeniable, lefties, so don't bother trying to deny it. You especially, Pogo.

 

[daveman]

Thalidomide was a drug, not a food. And one that could have been foisted on us as it was in Canada and Europe if not for FDA doing its job. The same job it's dong here.

Have any idea what the D in FDA stands for? I'll give you a hint: it's not "dipshit".

No kidding, Mr. Obvious.

But in case you didn't know, this thread is about the F part.

Dumbass.

But hey, speaking of that -- know your fake Jefferson quote about "big enough government"? Gerald Ford, 1974, not Jefferson.

Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older. It appeared frequently in newspapers in the 1950s (usually unattributed), and was even used in political cartoons. It was copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation, as part of a syndicated newspaper feature called "Today's Chuckle." It later became a popular saying among Republican politicians. Governor Harold W. Handley of Indiana used it in his annual message to the Indiana General Assembly in 1961;[3] Barry Goldwater was quoted using it in his 1964 run for president;[4] and Gerald Ford is on record using it in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[5] It was attributed to Ford as early as 1954, however,[6] and Ford's assistant, Robert Hartmann, said that Ford claimed to have heard the quotation "early in his political career" from Harvard McClain at the Economic Club of Chicago.[7]

This quotation was not attributed to Jefferson until relatively recently. It is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground."[8]​

Looks like we're both wrong. I can admit it. Can you?

I already read that site. I didn't say Ford was the first, did I? Careful how you word things.

Well, ain't you just a little weasel.

What else I read said that the false Jefferson attribution came from a Jim DeMint speech. Always vet your quotes.

The thread is supposed to be about the F part. That would be peachy with me. But some wags here insist on defining FDA as "gubbamint overreach". So I pointed out what that "overreach" of that same agency has accomplished, one of which was keeping Thalidomide at bay while it poisoned the rest of the world. Had the gubbamint nihilists had their way we'd have been at its mercy.

Too bad that's such an inconvenient reality huh?

And btw that's Captain Obvious, thank you very much.

You don't have to keep telling us that you need the government to make all your decisions for you. We get it. We've gotten it for a long time.

 

[Vox]

Guys, it is really getting ridiculous


the manufactured by food industry substance, manufactured to be cheap and profitable, has been proven to be harmful to the human health and when the government agency which sole purpose is to be a watchdog for us, the consumers, actually does it's job and mandates that harmful substance to be phased our of the market, you put that poisonous substance, which was manufactured to DUPE YOU, the consumer ( because the natural fats which are healthier are much pricier) is put up as a symbol of freedom.

If I won't be reading this myself for the third day I would say it is a lie.

How about manufactured genetically altered products?
Are you also considering them to be a banner of freedom?
Or are they the result of evil conspiracies of the Bilderberg club?

 

[Papageorgio]

So it's all about Numero Uno, right?

Typical.

Once again for the terminally slow -- there's nothing here relating to what you can eat. Oh wait, you're "intelligent", so you know that.
How do you like them banning labels that tell us there are GMOs in there then?

No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.

Uh huh. So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated themselves". Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves". My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".

Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.

You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular.

It's not about número uno, it is about getting your ******* self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the ******* government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say **** you, so spare me your massive stupidity.

I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.

Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a **** about anything but themselves.

 

[Pogo]

No dumb shit, it's about people educating themselves.

Uh huh. So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated themselves". Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves". My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".

Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.

You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular.

Your note of FDA's dragging its heels is well taken. So if they should have done this long ago (FDA admits it's been studying thiis for 15 years) -- then how can you simultaneously say they shouldn't? Are the voices in your head arguing again?

It's not about número uno, it is about getting your ******* self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the ******* government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say **** you, so spare me your massive stupidity.

OK if that's what you want: "**** you". Happy?

Isn't it? Read your own stuff: "I don't eat that shit"; "I educate myself"; "It's my choice"; "I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you".... me, me, me. Burgundy, please. Public health means everybody -- not just you.

I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.

Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a **** about anything but themselves.

This has nothing to do with "telling us what to eat"; it has to do with what a food purveyor or restaurant can put into food and whether that chemical needs to prove itself safe. That's it. What your (apparent) position says is that the almighty corporation can inject whatever it wants and it doesn't need to be tested. Explain that.

As far as "educating oneself", the question's still open: how would you have educated yourself about Thalidomide? You just admitted it was the right thing to do...

When you settle these arguments you're having with yourself, let us know who won.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nobody cares what you consume. Has nothing to do with this topic. You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.

FDA to ban trans-fats

Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume

Consider the source. You're reading a title fabricated by NovaSteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals. He saw the word trans and started drooling. But the reality is nothing's being "banned". So you can't go by that.

What's actually happening is FDA is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own GRAS list. Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe. Being off it will mean you do. So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.

Might wanna rethink that.

And what would be the point of that if not to initiate a ban or some other set of restrictions on trans fats. I think that it is painfully obvious that trans fats ARE NOT ‘dangerous.’ The current use of the term is so completely splintered as to make it worthless. We have easy access to chemicals that are FAR more harmful than trans fats could ever hope to be. All the research has already been done on trans fats and the current health risks associated with it is well known. The simple fact is that people CHOOSE to ingest it and should have that right to do so. Those fats are not toxic to the levels that require FDA regulations.

Even MORE important is that the market is taking care of the problem on its own. We have decreased trans fat consumption by rather large amounts over the years. When the PEOPLE are solving a problem the government should NOT step in and take over. That is asinine. I can only see this as a move to gain more power by the FDA by finding yet another common substance that they can control. Let the nation’s people take this on themselves as they are already doing so.

 

[Pogo]

FDA to ban trans-fats

Seems the FDA wants to know what I consume

Consider the source. You're reading a title fabricated by NovaSteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals. He saw the word trans and started drooling. But the reality is nothing's being "banned". So you can't go by that.

What's actually happening is FDA is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own GRAS list. Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe. Being off it will mean you do. So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.

Might wanna rethink that.

And what would be the point of that if not to initiate a ban or some other set of restrictions on trans fats. I think that it is painfully obvious that trans fats ARE NOT ‘dangerous.’ The current use of the term is so completely splintered as to make it worthless. We have easy access to chemicals that are FAR more harmful than trans fats could ever hope to be. All the research has already been done on trans fats and the current health risks associated with it is well known. The simple fact is that people CHOOSE to ingest it and should have that right to do so. Those fats are not toxic to the levels that require FDA regulations.

Even MORE important is that the market is taking care of the problem on its own. We have decreased trans fat consumption by rather large amounts over the years. When the PEOPLE are solving a problem the government should NOT step in and take over. That is asinine. I can only see this as a move to gain more power by the FDA by finding yet another common substance that they can control. Let the nation’s people take this on themselves as they are already doing so.

Howdy FQ. LTNS.

See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough. So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here. I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all. So far, crickets.

Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing. If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
Then there's restaurants. No "choice" there either.

Third, the only reason the market is "taking care of it on its own" (it isn't really -- certain products are still laden with it, again see post 506) that's only because the FDA acted in the past to require labeling -- which again is incomplete and insufficient.

And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list. An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe. If you can make that case you can get approved.

Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh huh. So the mothers of all those thalidomide babies should have just "educated themselves". Those 107 people who died from Elixir of Sulfanilamide should have "educated themselves". My friend who contracted a terminal illness from a bad drug, hey she just should have "educated herself".

Just as I said -- it's all about Numero Uno.

You are so full of shit, you are ridiculous, do you know that Trans fats are dangerous? The other stuff, yes the government should have stepped in but trans fats are on there way out and I don't eat that shit or anything partially hydrogenated, why, because that shit is worse for you than trans fats, then you have corn syrup. Trans fats have been around for decades, the government knew decades ago how bad it was, only now do the assholes step in. Why? Because they only do when it's popular.

Your note of FDA's dragging its heels is well taken. So if they should have done this long ago (FDA admits it's been studying thiis for 15 years) -- then how can you simultaneously say they shouldn't? Are the voices in your head arguing again?

It's not about número uno, it is about getting your ******* self educated. I am responsible for my life, not the ******* government, not you. So in the end as far as I am concerned, you will say **** you, so spare me your massive stupidity.

OK if that's what you want: "**** you". Happy?

Isn't it? Read your own stuff: "I don't eat that shit"; "I educate myself"; "It's my choice"; "I don't need big government to make my decisions for me. I'm intelligent, unlike you".... me, me, me. Burgundy, please. Public health means everybody -- not just you.

I have told people about the shit they consume and how eating organic is the only way, that something as simple as deodorant can cause long lasting health problems. The government went silent, I have told people. So it's about people with me and for you it's about government.

Again, it's not about waiting for government to tell us what to eat, it's about educating yourself, because the government, just like you don't give a **** about anything but themselves.

This has nothing to do with "telling us what to eat"; it has to do with what a food purveyor or restaurant can put into food and whether that chemical needs to prove itself safe. That's it. What your (apparent) position says is that the almighty corporation can inject whatever it wants and it doesn't need to be tested. Explain that.

As far as "educating oneself", the question's still open: how would you have educated yourself about Thalidomide? You just admitted it was the right thing to do...

When you settle these arguments you're having with yourself, let us know who won.

No argument with myself and I think you need to learn how to better comprehend what is written, either that or you are trolling.

 

[FA_Q2]

Howdy FQ. LTNS.

See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough. So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here. I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all. So far, crickets.

That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a ‘redeeming’ quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.
That is how freedom works pogo – you don’t limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe. That is asinine. You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe. Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest. Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.

Alcohol IS regulated though so I guess you can try and come at it from that angle but I would be willing to bet that not a single use of trans fat can be compared to completely legal alcoholic drinks as far as destructive and harmful effects go. Abusing trans fat is going to be less harmful than abusing alcohol.

Further, post 506 that you point to is a list of DRUGS and their affects which are FAR different than basic foods. Not a single one of those instances is comparable to trans fat. There is a world of difference between drugs and food.

Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing. If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
Then there's restaurants. No "choice" there either.

Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go. You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up. That is your right. However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly. I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest. I don’t care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU – as long as the end decision is MINE. Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.

Third, the only reason the market is "taking care of it on its own" (it isn't really -- certain products are still laden with it, again see post 506) that's only because the FDA acted in the past to require labeling -- which again is incomplete and insufficient.

I think you are thinking of the wrong post… that one has nothing about laden products.

Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant. The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade. That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever. They are taking care of it – the government is NOT needed here.

And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list. An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe. If you can make that case you can get approved.

Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?

Yes they are. They have already started in places like NY – the favorite nanny state city. That is EXACTLY where they are going with this.

government agency said Thursday it would require food makers to gradually phase out artificial trans fats

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/fda-wants-ban-trans-fats-food-8C11551559
The FDA DIRECTLY said that they are moving to ban the substance. Are you telling me that the director is lying? I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family. That is not what the government is there for. Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of ‘my own good.’ That should be appalling to anyone in this nation. WE are taking care of the problem. WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).

 

[Pogo]

Howdy FQ. LTNS.

See post 506 for some science on just how toxic they are - and there were other posts early in the thread if that's not enough. So if you can show this "painfully obvious" you'll be the first one here. I've been asking for anyone at all to demonstrate any redeeming qualities at all. So far, crickets.

That is really coming at it backwards though. It does not need a &#8216;redeeming&#8217; quality. The quality is that I want to eat it. Beyond that, the government should have to make the case that it is too toxic to ingest rather than the other way around.

They already have. That's the whole point. As some have pointed out, that's old news and the FDA acting on it is overdue.

You "want to eat it"? Why? This is another question that's been sitting unmolested -- what would you be deprived of exactly? Seriously, you're the first poster who claims a desire to eat this stuff at all. What for?

That is how freedom works pogo &#8211; you don&#8217;t limit activities because <insert agency here> has not proven that it is safe. That is asinine. You limit those activities once you proven them unsafe. Here we have trans fats that are proven without a doubt to be safer than MANY things that we ingest. Such things like alcohol are FAR worse yet those are readily available.

Cool your jets. That's not what I said.
What the FDA proposes to do is to remove them from its own GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list. When you're on that list (as trans fats are now) you don't have to prove you're safe to go into food. When you're off it, you do. So what would happen is that present or future trans fats would be required to show that they're not. And yes, ANY artificial chemical proposed to go into the public food supply has to be proven safe. That goes without saying. You don't just pick up random objects off the street and eat them, do you?

Whether they're more or less safe than other unrelated things is entirely irrelevant. Those other things get evaluated on their own. This is not a comparison.

Alcohol IS regulated though so I guess you can try and come at it from that angle but I would be willing to bet that not a single use of trans fat can be compared to completely legal alcoholic drinks as far as destructive and harmful effects go. Abusing trans fat is going to be less harmful than abusing alcohol.

Not in terms of heart disease it isn't. Have you even read the research and conclusions? I have to ask because you're literally the first poster in this thread that implies trans fats have any kind of positive at all.

Further, post 506 that you point to is a list of DRUGS and their affects which are FAR different than basic foods. Not a single one of those instances is comparable to trans fat. There is a world of difference between drugs and food.

I beg your pardon. I got my post numbers mixed up. I meant to refer you to post 524. Sorry 'bout that.

Second, people don't always "choose" any such thing. If it's not present on the label, or disguised when it is, there's no such choice.
Then there's restaurants. No "choice" there either.

Which is why labeling should be required and is the direction that the FDA should go. You are allowed to take a cancer stick, put it in your mouth and light up. That is your right. However, the company MUST warn you about those harmful effects and label the products accordingly. I have no qualms with requiring companies to be honest. I don&#8217;t care if the FDA demands that the companies put a big sticker on the front that states THIS FOOD WILL KILL YOU &#8211; as long as the end decision is MINE. Something that banning and controlling a substance does NOT allow.

Restaurants?

I think you are thinking of the wrong post&#8230; that one has nothing about laden products.

Either way, the fact that there are products with it is irrelevant. The facts are that average consumption has move from 5.8 to 1.3 in the last decade. That means the market IS taking care of that as people are more health conscious now than ever. They are taking care of it &#8211; the government is NOT needed here.

I thought I made this point, but the only reason the "market is taking care of that" is that the government (FDA) required it to be labeled. The market does not do this by itself. I've also pointed out, the objective of a food company (or any company) is to make a profit -- not to look out for the health or well being of its customers. Again, R.J. Reynolds and their ilk are a perfect example. Some entity MUST oversee what corporatia is doing when public health is involved.

I seem to see no shortage of energy directed at the government's penchant for controlling our lives, which is all well and good, but I see an acute dearth of the same energy directed at corporatia's penchant to do the same thing. And that's a problem, especially considering which of those entities has more power over the other.

And fourth, nobody's "banning" or "controlling" anything -- the proposal is to take trans fats off the FDA's own GRAS list. An ingredient being on that list means it doesn't have to justify that it's safe. If you can make that case you can get approved.

Now why would you want a chemical in your food that doesn't have to justify its safety?

Yes they are. They have already started in places like NY &#8211; the favorite nanny state city. That is EXACTLY where they are going with this.

government agency said Thursday it would require food makers to gradually phase out artificial trans fats

FDA moves to phase out trans fats from food, citing health concerns - NBC News.com

The FDA DIRECTLY said that they are moving to ban the substance. Are you telling me that the director is lying?

No, they didn't. Not sure where this is coming from-- your link doesn't even mention a "director". I am telling you OP of this thread is lying though. Here's the actual FDA press release. And I quote:

>> Following a review of the submitted comments, if the FDA finalizes its preliminary determination, PHOs would be considered &#8220;food additives&#8221; and could not be used in food unless authorized by regulation. <<

That's not a 'ban'. I don't care what the media calls it in its headlines.

More from this FDA page on GRAS:

>> Part of the FDA's responsibility to the public is to ensure that food in the American food supply is safe. Therefore, due to the risks associated with consuming PHOs, FDA has issued a Federal Register notice with its preliminary determination that PHOs are no longer "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, for short. If this preliminary determination is finalized, then PHOs would become food additives subject to premarket approval by FDA. Foods containing unapproved food additives are considered adulterated under U.S. law, meaning they cannot legally be sold. <<

And more about GRAS from the same page:

>> Under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, any substance intentionally added to food is a food additive subject to premarket approval and review by FDA, with some exceptions. The exceptions include substances "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, because they are generally recognized by qualified experts as safe under the conditions of intended use. <<

-- said qualified experts no longer recognize trans fats as safe, therefore FDA is obligated to take them off the GRAS list. THAT is what FDA is proposing to do.

I tire of the government demanding that it needs to make decisions for me and my family. That is not what the government is there for. Its existence is to protect my rights and instead they are more interested in taking them away in the name of &#8216;my own good.&#8217; That should be appalling to anyone in this nation. WE are taking care of the problem. WE are reducing intake of trans fats with little more than labeling requirements (which are always a good thing IMHO).

The government (i.e. our federal gov't) has been doing that since 1848, around the time when food started to get industrialized and mass produced. The GRAS list is part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 so it's been with us since you and I were kids if not before. And other institutional food screening goes back at least seven hundred years (see post 497). If your "rights" have been taken away for seven hundred years, you might need to remind me what they were. I understand they had some awesome diseases in 1311.

Again, this is the FDA's job -- to ensure that unscrupulous merchants aren't selling us death. Whether that be food, drugs or cosmetics. It's exactly what they're there for.

Sorry about that errant post number but I think you'll find 524 far more to the point. Let me know if you can find anything good to say about trans fats after that. Again the underlying question is: what exactly are you being deprived of? Heart disease?

Finally try to answer this in real world terms of the practical -- rather than abstract terms of the ideological.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nobody cares what you consume. Has nothing to do with this topic. You want to consume trans fats, ain't nobody stopping you.

fda to ban trans-fats

seems the fda wants to know what i consume

consider the source. You're reading a title fabricated by novasteve -- again, a guy who's infatuated with transsexuals. He saw the word trans and started drooling. But the reality is nothing's being "banned". So you can't go by that.

What's actually happening is fda is opening comments on a proposal to take trans fats off its own gras list. Being on that list means you don't have to prove it's unsafe. Being off it will mean you do. So what you're arguing against is food safety standards.

Might wanna rethink that.

bloomberg if he had the authority would make a national ban

 

[paulitician]

Aw man, shut up people! Big Brother's so dang cool. He knows what's best for us. If he says we can't have it, then we aint havin it. That's it. This aint no fee country. Y'all just need to shut up and do what your told. Yanowhatimean?

 

[Pogo]

"Fee country"

Yeah it pretty much is. That's pretty much how trans fats have lasted this long .... lobbyist fees.

 

[paulitician]

Look, the Dictator and his fat Wife say it's bad for you. Therefore it's gone. And it's only the beginning. Big Brother will set your Diet, and you'll like it. That's that. Hallelujah Obamacare!!!

No, the FDA and Captain Obvious said so. I don't know how you missed this but we've known this is bad stuff like forever.

But by all means, while your fascist nose is squarely up the corporate anus, go ahead and take on the question that nobody else has been able to answer: what exactly would you be deprived of?









Can't answer that, can ya?

Aw, i remember when i had my first beer. You sound like an adolescent desperately trying to fit in speaking with the adults. You got the bluster thing down, but behind all the bluster is an empty suit. You really don't know what you're talking about. But hey, i'll chalk it up to bold youth. Go ahead and take a break from the Board and come back when you understand what the term 'Fascist' means. I think you'll find that it actually describes you to a tee. Now off ya go youngster.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without safty breakers in them!

 

[paulitician]

I demand the freedom to clog my artaries and die from a heart attack before I reach age 70! Only a commie like Obama would take that right away from me! First they took lead out of paint and gasoline. What next? Hell, I can't even build a house with electrical outlets next to the sink without safty breakers in them!

Oh GAWD, the ole lead paint meme. Man, you Nanny/Police Staters really are pathetic. YAY FOOD GESTAPO!!! And all that.

 

[paulitician]

Oh well, another day, another ban. Such is life in a Nanny/Police State. I'm out. Got some Football to enjoy. We better enjoy it while we still can i guess. Ya never know when the Dictator and his fat wife will decide to ban tackling. Have a good day all. See ya.