WRT trans fats, the FDA should ...
Displaying poll results.18314 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8274 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 2345 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 9 comments
Outright bans are not smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outright bans are not smart (Score:2, Insightful)
Outright bans are also contrary to the liberal philosophy on which Western civilization is based. Furthermore, prohibition is proven to have some nasty unintended consequences.
I like the approach we take toward smoking: adults can use it if they want, but only with full awareness of the fact that it is suicidal. Require similar labeling on trans fat foods. Don't take away citizens' choices - ensure they are making informed choices.
Synthetic trans fats (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that this isn't ALL trans fats, only synthetic trans fats made by hydrogenating vegetable oils. Naturally occurring trans fats that are present in lard, for example, are not going to be banned. I don't buy the sort of heavily processed products that include hydrogenated vegetable oils anyway, so I anticipate this change having no effect on me at all. But it might improve the health of people who live on processed foods and lower my insurance costs.
Missing options (of course) (Score:2, Insightful)
Label them and let people decide for them fucking selves.
I know most people around here need to have their hand held by big brother but I can read and I can decide. Fuck anyone else who can't.
Character Limit For Questions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outright bans are not smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Food producers were given ample opportunity to reduce trans fats. I don't know if they've threatened the outright ban already, but I doubt this is a big surprise to major food corps.
It seems that they're targeting fast food and frozen food products. I don't know that a ban is a great thing. A stronger push to reduce would probably be better.
Banning foods that aren't good for you is a slippery slope, and wen it impacts particular food stuffs, the people will get very upset. You can use the New York soft drink ban as an example. It was voted upon ont Sept 13, 2012. It was invalidated by the New York Supreme Court on Mar 11, 2013.
The government should not be deciding if a food is good or bad for you. The exception is carcinogenic foodstuffs that you may not be aware of (like red dye #2 and #4 and orange dye #1).
Honestly, they have bigger issues that they could be addressing like "meat glue", "pink slime", false label "honey" and "maple syrup", and fish that could be anything but what the package says.
Actually, I'd love to see them enforce what the package says or implies is actually true of the product. If the front of the package says "all natural" with a tiny asterisk, but the back of the package has a microprint line that says "may contain up to 10% real [product]" or "may contain arsenic and/or cyanide", really isn't doing anyone any good.
And fucking hell, I want "Pringles Light potato crisps" to have in big bold words across the front "Contains Olestra! You may shit your pants while eating this!" Mmmm.. Can't eat just one, eh?
Re:Synthetic trans fats (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, this isn't about banning meat or something. It's about banning something which only has an upside for the manufacturer.
Re:Outright bans are not smart (Score:4, Insightful)