Taken in enough quantity over time it will without debate cause a deathly illness. It has no known nutritional value. But the case should not be about whether it can be allowed in food. The case should have been whether producers can add it in trace amounts without listing those trace amounts on the label. I have no problem with a person wanting to ingest trans fat and having the freedom to do so. I have a problem with people not wanting to ingest it and being tricked into ingesting it in quantities that have been proven to be harmful. Trans fat has a cumulative affect. A person should be able to judge for themselves how much is safe and at what point it will act as a poison. When you buy a loaf of bread you should be able to know if every slice you eat has trans fat, or no trans fat. You should be permitted to decide for yourself when you might ingest moderate or limited amounts of trans fat. I just don't see why a food producer needs to be allowed to hide what they put into their product.
Then why support an outright ban over proper labeling?
What are you talking about? I am in favor of accurate labeling. The law to now has allowed trace amounts of trans fats to be in food without appearing as such on the label. That is what the industry demanded.
But the move is to ban trans fats - NOT to correct labeling.
You keep trotting out that bullshit canard.
From the OP article:
“The agency has made a preliminary determination that partially hydrogenated oils, a major source of trans fat in processed food, are not generally recognized as safe for food,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told reporters during a conference call Thursday morning, referencing the regulatory standard used by the agency to determine the safety of food ingredients.
“Generally recognized as safe” is industry-speak for a substance that food manufacturers have self-determined is safe. Under its proposal, FDA would rescind trans fat’s GRAS status.
and what that means is:
The agency is accepting comments for 60 days, and then, if finalized, food manufacturers could only use partially hydrogenated oils if they apply to use them as food additives, which means companies would have to determine they do not harm the public health.
Even the OP itself in its hopless bias only claims "The Obama administration is expected to
all but ban trans fat" -- which is STILL bogus bias, as it's the FDA -- not "the Obama Administration". The FDA is always there, regardless the Administration, and has been since it was created -- by Republicans.
There is no "ban". All taking transfats off the GRAS list means is that if you put 'em in there, you have to show that they're not malicious-- puts the burden of proof on the foodmonger. What a fuckin' nightmare huh? Having to show you're not selling me poison, oh the indignity!
What you whiners are whining about is the prospect of Corporatia not being allowed to get away with a lie. Which is what "here, eat this" is when you know it's got poison in it.
The weird thing is,
we did all this last time this same thing came up, and here y'all are again trying to make the same bullshit case that's already been shot down. Expecting different results are we?
