Nov 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm #1309579
The nanny state is at it again.
"The Food and Drug Administration proposed measures on Thursday that would all but eliminate artery-clogging, artificial trans fats from the food supply, the culmination of three decades of effort by public health advocates to get the government to take action against them.
Artificial trans fats — a major contributor to heart disease in the United States — have already been substantially reduced in foods. But they still lurk in many popular products, like frostings, microwave popcorn, packaged pies, frozen pizzas, margarines and coffee creamers. Banning them completely could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year, the F.D.A. said…"Nov 7, 2013 at 12:13 pm #2042245
That seems inconsistent
Your "nanny state" comment implies youy're against the ban
The rest of what you said must mean you're for the ban since trans fats are so unhealthfulNov 7, 2013 at 3:47 pm #2042330
"That seems inconsistent"
Double face palmNov 7, 2013 at 8:11 pm #2042406
Ben 2 WorldParticipant
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
I wish for a 'yes' answer, but when more and more of our kids – along with more and more of their parents are now downright obese — I wonder how much freedom becomes too much of a good thing for us collectively?
Maybe we can keep all options open by levying higher insurance and other fees to those who choose to live reckless / unhealthy lifestyles? But that's opening a whole another can of worms…Nov 7, 2013 at 9:55 pm #2042446
Jerry, I was directly quoting the article.
Edit: Just realized I originally quoted a different article than the one I posted.Nov 7, 2013 at 9:57 pm #2042448
Reading the heading I thought the Federal Department of Aviation was going to ban crossdressing obese people from flyingNov 7, 2013 at 10:08 pm #2042450
the Nanny State comment was yours and the quoted text below was from the article : )
so do you think it would be okay if food places put lead or arsenic in their food and left it up to the consumer to complain?Nov 7, 2013 at 10:27 pm #2042456
Jerry, I take it you eat no trans fats at all. Good for you.
Edited because I wrote trans cats….Nov 7, 2013 at 10:31 pm #2042458
I don't eat much of it, but I do and my cholesterol ratio is stellar. Should I not be able to have any at all just because some people have a horrible diet?
Along those lines, why not ban sugar and even more so alcohol? My view has nothing to do with protecting an industry; I just have very little faith in the FDA and this banning for all when only some abuse it is not my thing.
Then again, I am for the de criminalization of drugs all together so…Nov 7, 2013 at 10:42 pm #2042463
"Maybe we can keep all options open by levying higher insurance and other fees to those who choose to live reckless / unhealthy lifestyles? But that's opening a whole another can of worms…"
That can of worms being that food manufacturers put sugar and fat in their food to make it more addicitive so people buy more. Presumably, they also know this leads to poor health and obesity but don't care as long as they're making more profits.
Maybe the FDA should ban putting extra sugar and fat into their product so it's not so addictive?Nov 8, 2013 at 6:53 am #2042501
"Jerry, I take it you eat no trans fats at all. Good for you.
Edited because I wrote trans cats…."
I eat it occasionally. I'de rather eat butter.
I have a "trans cat" purring in my lap : )
I think the main motivation for developing hydrogonated oil is to make a longer shelf life. Something like lard goes rancid after a while. Back in the "bad old days" they introduced new products without any testing for safety. Today they test things a little better and we're weeding out dangerous products.
Making alcohol and marijuana illegal to control use didn't work so good. And I think some use is safe. They shouldn't make trans fat illegal to buy or sell, just illegal to put in food products. Maybe they should have to put a label on it like "trans fat causes heart disease".
I suspect trans fat isn't really that dangerous and it would be better to focus on all that sugar that is more clearly dangerous.
I drank a Pepsi with high fructose corn syrup in it the other day.Nov 8, 2013 at 8:57 pm #2042718
@sarbarLocale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Frankly I cannot see ANY reason for WANTING transfats! They are horrible for you and frankly taste nasty. Cheap though. Easy to make food cheaply…..
See I'd rather eat a donut fried in tallow any-day over cheap shortening made of altered fats. Like old school fries, fried in lovely tallow.
The point is, transfats are not "needed" in food production. It is simply a cheaper way to produce shelf-stable highly processed foods. Kind of like using HFCS in pop.
I love how elsewhere I saw whining over microwave popcorn would have to change. Really? It is so easy to throw 1/2 cup organic popcorn in a new lunch sack, microwave for 2-3 minutes, then toss with EVOO and sea salt. Who NEEDS transfat laden fake butter? You just don't!Nov 8, 2013 at 9:08 pm #2042721
Sarah, thanks for your concern.
I love to cook, was raised with a healthy Mediterranean diet with lots of quality olive oil , and watched my parents prepare some unbelievable meals every night. Never ate fast food nor microwaveable meals while growing up; I barely every do now. I know how to eat well. Just because some people over do, get fat and get heart disease, does not mean I cannot handle a bag of chips now and then. My solution is to educate people, which means encouraging critical thinking and researching something other than what major media and the FDA put out. Once people learn and take responsibility they will probably make better choices. That is my hope anyway. The FDA is not reliable in my opinion.
I like my popcorn with real butter, every now and then with olive oil.Nov 8, 2013 at 9:30 pm #2042725
W I S N E R !Participant
NM.Nov 8, 2013 at 9:34 pm #2042726
NmNov 8, 2013 at 9:38 pm #2042728
To just gobble up that the FDA is not in bed with anyone and always looks after us, without closing an eye here, waiting a bit there….that is the problem I have with this.
Just read up on the fiasco with Acetaminophen and for how long the FDA knew about the side effect and the deaths.
Corruption has run rampant in the FDA for a long time.
Clean up that and other agencies and I would much more likely be on board with them making decision that affect the public. As is, no thanks.
Here is a link to a Mother Jones article, revealing " just how completely large, powerful industries have gained ownership over their federal watchdogs and taught them to sit, heel, and perform other submissive tricks. "Nov 8, 2013 at 11:05 pm #2042745
I agree, almost every problem comes down to the fact we have "the best government money can buy"
The FDA has delayed doing anything about trans fat because it's been bought, but they're finally doing something – good.
I do wonder about the claim that 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths are caused by trans fat…Nov 9, 2013 at 1:24 am #2042748
Better to enforce proper labeling than to ban something. I do not trust the FDA to tell me what is healthy and not healthy. If someone wants to damage their health with trans fat, I don't care. However I can see how that's an issue with cost under an inevitable universal health care system.Nov 9, 2013 at 7:07 am #2042779
Since they required trans fat labeling, it disappeared from food.
If they could just label French Fries at fast food place we'de be done.
But they still have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, I wonder if that's unhealthy?Nov 12, 2013 at 12:48 pm #2043772
Oh. fats. I read it as trans fa_ts, which seemed like it should be the EPA not the FDA.Nov 13, 2013 at 10:32 am #2044103
@jenmitolLocale: In my dreams....
I tend to believe that people who are anti-regulation and think of it as a "nanny state" have not spent much time in third world countries.
Look at the pollution in China – yep, none of those job-killing regulations there!
Who needs building codes?? That just increases prices!
Use anti-freeze to sweeten your toothpaste? Of course! It's so much cheaper and we can't expect businesses to have to bear these costs, can we?
We used to think asbestos was a great insulator, thalidomide was wonderful for morning sickness…the list goes on. Frankly, we have no ammunition against corporations who have dollar signs and lawsuits as their only motivation for action. So the nanny state isn't necessarily because you and I can't make decisions…but rather to motivate those profit-driven corporations actually do the right thing. I don't trust them for one minute to do it out of altruism.
And frankly, yes, people are STOOPID about this stuff. I had a patient who was so sad she couldn't lose weight, she didn't eat very much, had a nice breakfast…of White Castles. That was good, wasn't it? Another patient wanted to know why I disagreed with her choice of a Chicago style Italian Beef sandwich as not a healthy choice for dinner. She really, honestly didn't understand.Nov 13, 2013 at 11:50 am #2044127
An interesting article on how the food pyramid came to be ; the politics behind it, the food industry versus the health of the consumer. The department of Agriculture and it's interest in pushing carbs at the expense of fats.Nov 13, 2013 at 2:46 pm #2044192
Based on the government's recommendation and aggressive marketing, should it be held to account for obesity due to the food pyramid? Especially for the children, elderly and minorities who became fat on the government's advice and counsel.Nov 13, 2013 at 3:00 pm #2044198
I don't think it's well understood what's caused the obesity epidemic
More research is required
September issue of Scientific American was about food. They mentioned several factors:
Sugar and fat together have some of the same characteristics as drugs. Like there's an experiment where rats keep pushing the lever to get more even though they get an electrical shock, just like cocaine.
Simple carbs, like sugar, white rice, white flour, and potatoes cause hormone changes that cause you to store fat. Atkins was considered a bit of a kook, but now mainstream scientists are beginning to agree.
Calories are not calories. Some food is harder to digest so the actual calories derived from the food is less than the label. Some people have different organisms in their intestines so extract more or less from their food.
The current USDA recommendation isn't too bad http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/MyPlate/DG2010Brochure.pdf
"Make half your plate fruits and vegetables"
"make at least half your grains whole"
"drink water instead of sugary drinks"
etc.Nov 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm #2044227
My wide brethren and I prefer to be called horizontally blessed in lieu of obese thank you very much.
I found 'Sugar: The Bitter Truth' to be an interesting presentation about Fructose on YouTube.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.