Food industry braces for Obama trans fat ban

[The Rabbi]

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

What the ****, 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.

S if ordinary people know this they'll avoid transfats and companies will stop using them. Problem solved.

 

[Iceweasel]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

It isn't practical since they are forced to eat out? You libs are nuts. Plus, people do eat out and are quite healthy, quit ordering the double cheesecake whip cream dessert.

 

[Iceweasel]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Except it's not just on you.

Heart disease and strokes account for more than $312 billion in health care expenditures.

Oh Gawd, now the healthcare card. Just because you're scared irresponsible little children, doesn't mean you have the right to force your Nanny State on the rest of us. We don't want it. Capisce.

YOU ARE paying for it, dipshit. Maybe someone needs to explain to you how insurance works, assuming you have it.

 

[Flopper]

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."

Google the phrase and you will see it used as justification.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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."

You might tell that to Rick Santorum. His wife had an abortion to save her life.

 

[Pogo]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

 

[Flopper]

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 ****, 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.

There are loads of studies funded by CDC, NSF, Center for Science and Public Interest, Mayo Clinic, Nurses Health Study, American Medical Association, John Hopkins, and that's just in the US. The subject has been studied world wide and the conclusion is same. Artificial trans fats are not safe in any diet. The only studies you will find that disagree are those funded by the food processing industry. Those studies don't dispute the main stream medical research. They just point out that trans fats are really not that bad if you limit their intake. These are the same people that fought against labeling trans fats in in 1990's.

 

[Flopper]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

It isn't practical since they are forced to eat out? You libs are nuts. Plus, people do eat out and are quite healthy, quit ordering the double cheesecake whip cream dessert.

'Whisky and 15 cigarettes a day is the secret of my good health' says Dorothy Howe as she celebrates her 100th birthday." Therefore cigarettes and liquor pose no danger to public.

Whisky and 15 cigarettes a day is the secret of my good health says Dorothy as she celebrates her 100th birthday with a glass of her favourite tipple of course Daily Mail Online

 

[Iceweasel]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

 

[Iceweasel]

Avoiding trans fats and saturated fats will not only reduce your chance of heart disease but also other serious diseases. Any amount that enters your body is likely to increase your cholesterol which leads eventually to heart disease and strokes. Eliminating artificial trans fats from all foods is a relatively easy way to reduce cholesterol. Both the individual and the nation benefits. We spend 444 billion dollars a year on heart disease, 1 in every 6 healthcare dollars.

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

It isn't practical since they are forced to eat out? You libs are nuts. Plus, people do eat out and are quite healthy, quit ordering the double cheesecake whip cream dessert.

'Whisky and 15 cigarettes a day is the secret of my good health' says Dorothy Howe as she celebrates her 100th birthday." Therefore cigarettes and liquor pose no danger to public.

Whisky and 15 cigarettes a day is the secret of my good health says Dorothy as she celebrates her 100th birthday with a glass of her favourite tipple of course Daily Mail Online

Look, you low slopping foreheaded retard. The point is that people, like Dorothy, should decide for herself, not some self appointed health czar. Get it? Add a few more whirly gigs to your post, that will make your point more meaningful.

 

[Pogo]

Plenty of people avoid it now. I get very little trans fat because of my eating choices. You libs need mother government to make decisions for you, that's what the argument is really all about.

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Still playing stupid then, that's the plan is it?
We spelled all this out for you back in post 322, smegma-for-brains. As well as TWO YEARS AGO.

Posting "wrong" doesn't exactly refute that. It's exactly the issue, regardless what you wish the issue had been before you didn't bother to read the article and jumped in with both feet and a bag of assumptions based on a bullshit OP title.

There is no "health czar deciding" jack shit. It's very simple; foodmongers will be required to demonstrate that such an additive is safe. Do that, and you can sell all the Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs Now With New Trans Fats® you want. It's very simple. Apparently so simple it's over your partisan hacknoid little head.

 

[paulitician]

Nanny States really are for lazy weak-minded individuals. Many need a Nanny to babysit them. Unfortunately, most Americans are behaving like frightened children these days. Always begging Government to 'Do Something.' Americans need to become more independent again. They need to stop begging Government to control their lives. But most importantly, they need to stop trying to force their Nanny State on others.

If you wanna live in fear of the 'Bad Food' Boogeyman, Big Gulp Boogeyman, Global Warming Boogeyman, Terrorist Boogeyman, than so be it. But don't try to force the rest of us to. We're adults who are capable of making decisions. We don't need a Nanny. So, hands off my greasy burger and Big Gulp... Oh, and i'm gonna keep my guns too.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you avoid restaurants and processed foods that use hydrogenation, you can avoid artificial trans fats. Since most people eat in restaurants and most of our baked and fried foods contain it, that's not practical for most people.

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Still playing stupid then, that's the plan is it?
We spelled all this out for you back in post 322, smegma-for-brains. As well as TWO YEARS AGO.

Posting "wrong" doesn't exactly refute that. It's exactly the issue, regardless what you wish the issue had been before you didn't bother to read the article and jumped in with both feet and a bag of assumptions based on a bullshit OP title.

There is no "health czar deciding" jack shit. It's very simple; foodmongers will be required to demonstrate that such an additive is safe. Do that, and you can sell all the Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs Now With New Trans Fats® you want. It's very simple. Apparently so simple it's over your partisan hacknoid little head.

Wrong.
Just because it's something a food Nazi like you approves of doesn't mean it should be the law of the land. As mentioned many times by many people, there are many things in food not healthy for you BUT sensible people partake in moderation. Like tobacco, alcohol, fast food, etc.

Picking one thing out to prop up your nanny state mentality, then another, then another to grow government is the kind of thing this country fought and was founded to oppose. Move to Cuba.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Spot On. maybe it is time to just label everything 'CAUTION: THIS COULD POSSIBLY KILL YOU.' Would get all the confusion and whining out of the way.

 

[Pogo]

He has yet to answer what his problem is with a simple demonstration that an artificial substance concocted in a lab is safe for human consumption.

Which is precisely what this issue is.

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Still playing stupid then, that's the plan is it?
We spelled all this out for you back in post 322, smegma-for-brains. As well as TWO YEARS AGO.

Posting "wrong" doesn't exactly refute that. It's exactly the issue, regardless what you wish the issue had been before you didn't bother to read the article and jumped in with both feet and a bag of assumptions based on a bullshit OP title.

There is no "health czar deciding" jack shit. It's very simple; foodmongers will be required to demonstrate that such an additive is safe. Do that, and you can sell all the Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs Now With New Trans Fats® you want. It's very simple. Apparently so simple it's over your partisan hacknoid little head.

Wrong.
Just because it's something a food Nazi like you approves of doesn't mean it should be the law of the land. As mentioned many times by many people, there are many things in food not healthy for you BUT sensible people partake in moderation. Like tobacco, alcohol, fast food, etc.

Picking one thing out to prop up your nanny state mentality, then another, then another to grow government is the kind of thing this country fought and was founded to oppose. Move to Cuba.

What I "approve of" is irrelevant. What some company concocts in a lab however, does need to be scrutinized before being sold as a food product. It's that simple.

Perhaps if you got up off your knees and quit gobbling corporate cock long enough to read the articles, you'd figure this out and quite embarrassing yourself here.

Then again, perhaps not.

 

[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.

Spot On. maybe it is time to just label everything 'CAUTION: THIS COULD POSSIBLY KILL YOU.' Would get all the confusion and whining out of the way.

Here's another, far easier way to "get the confusion and whining out of the way" --

Quit trolling a point you've already lost. Maybe even admit you fucked up.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Except it's not just on you.

Heart disease and strokes account for more than $312 billion in health care expenditures.

Oh Gawd, now the healthcare card. Just because you're scared irresponsible little children, doesn't mean you have the right to force your Nanny State on the rest of us. We don't want it. Capisce.

YOU ARE paying for it, dipshit. Maybe someone needs to explain to you how insurance works, assuming you have it.

Why don't you just play the Race-Card now too? Heard all these silly arguments before. Hands off my greasy burger and Big Gulp! Capisce!

 

[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.

Except it's not just on you.

Heart disease and strokes account for more than $312 billion in health care expenditures.

Oh Gawd, now the healthcare card. Just because you're scared irresponsible little children, doesn't mean you have the right to force your Nanny State on the rest of us. We don't want it. Capisce.

YOU ARE paying for it, dipshit. Maybe someone needs to explain to you how insurance works, assuming you have it.

Why don't you just play the Race-Card now too? Heard all these silly arguments before. Hands off my greasy burger and Big Gulp! Capisce!

Link to these "hands" then?

No? Nothing?

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong. If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Try reading the article, Dumbass....

If you can't understand the posts, stop responding or have someone walk you through them.

Still playing stupid then, that's the plan is it?
We spelled all this out for you back in post 322, smegma-for-brains. As well as TWO YEARS AGO.

Posting "wrong" doesn't exactly refute that. It's exactly the issue, regardless what you wish the issue had been before you didn't bother to read the article and jumped in with both feet and a bag of assumptions based on a bullshit OP title.

There is no "health czar deciding" jack shit. It's very simple; foodmongers will be required to demonstrate that such an additive is safe. Do that, and you can sell all the Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs Now With New Trans Fats® you want. It's very simple. Apparently so simple it's over your partisan hacknoid little head.

Wrong.
Just because it's something a food Nazi like you approves of doesn't mean it should be the law of the land. As mentioned many times by many people, there are many things in food not healthy for you BUT sensible people partake in moderation. Like tobacco, alcohol, fast food, etc.

Picking one thing out to prop up your nanny state mentality, then another, then another to grow government is the kind of thing this country fought and was founded to oppose. Move to Cuba.

What I "approve of" is irrelevant. What some company concocts in a lab however, does need to be scrutinized before being sold as a food product. It's that simple.

Perhaps if you got up off your knees and quit gobbling corporate cock long enough to read the articles, you'd figure this out and quite embarrassing yourself here.

Then again, perhaps not.

Trans fats have been around for along time now, you make it sound like some new poison was just invented and is corrupting our food supply. You've ignored everything that doesn't fit your narrow world view. Quit sucking the government cock and grow a backbone.