FDA Finally Moves to Ban Heart-Clogging Trans Fats

[sangha]

That may or may not be true depending upon the item banned. If I had a substance that was burned upon my trash pile and created a harmful vapor, it would go into the atmosphere and could be inhaled by other individuals unaware and without their decision to do so. That is a harm upon others.

I have a substance that I put into my cookies that could cause harm to others if consumed in a given quantity. Were I to not make it clear, through labelling or other methods, we would be in the same position as above, people ingesting the substance without knowledge, making any decision to ingest the cookie moot since all information was not available. Harm to others. But by labelling and showing that the ingredient is in the cookie, the consumer now has the information available and is able to make an informed choice as to whether or not to ingest the cookie and it's potentially harmful ingredient. Failure to look at the labelling is on the consumer, not me. That is harm to self.



People will always be the weak link in such matters. That does not mean that you remove freedoms, rights and choices simply because people don't want to bother to read and understand the information provided to them. If I am lactose intolerant or need to be gluten free, and I fail to check the box to see if it contains dairy or wheat, whose responsibility is that. Since those items are so harmful maybe they need to be banned as well.



You medical bills are also inflated due to the health problems of those who engage in other risky behaviour, be it sexual (STI's) or otherwise (skydiving, bungee jumping, parkour, etc). Actions in other areas can also affect you in many ways as well. Failure to obtain a good education (as opposed to inability) as well as not bothering to obtain employment results in you having to pay more for social support programs. There are many ways in which we can show indirect effects. That is not sufficient to remove freedoms, rights and choices.

Even with labeling, the fact is others are being harmed. The person who is being harmed is not the person who is adding the trans fats to their product. I don't know about you, but when one person does something that harms another person that is harming another person, not oneself.

Under the law, you can't always do things that harm other people, even if they know about it and consent. If someone were to ask me to shoot them, it would still be illegal for me to do so.

More importantly is that you seem to assume that all food products are labeled. When I buy a cake in a bakery, there is no list of ingredients. Restaurants and places that sell prepared foods do not list their ingredients. The claim that a list of ingredients is available, so therefore people know what they're consuming is just not true.

And while there are behaviors which have a social cost and are not banned, those activities have some redeeming value, if only recreational.

As another poster said earlier, only in America could something as dangerous as trans-fats be a political issue. Nowhere else would the use of a poison in our food supply whose only benefit is to give mass produced garbage foods a longer shelf-life be considered an essential freedom worth fighting for.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Even with labeling, the fact is others are being harmed. The person who is being harmed is not the person who is adding the trans fats to their product. I don't know about you, but when one person does something that harms another person that is harming another person, not oneself.

Under the law, you can't always do things that harm other people, even if they know about it and consent. If someone were to ask me to shoot them, it would still be illegal for me to do so.

More importantly is that you seem to assume that all food products are labeled. When I buy a cake in a bakery, there is no list of ingredients. Restaurants and places that sell prepared foods do not list their ingredients. The claim that a list of ingredients is available, so therefore people know what they're consuming is just not true.

And while there are behaviors which have a social cost and are not banned, those activities have some redeeming value, if only recreational.

As another poster said earlier, only in America could something as dangerous as trans-fats be a political issue. Nowhere else would the use of a poison in our food supply whose only benefit is to give mass produced garbage foods a longer shelf-life be considered an essential freedom worth fighting for.

That "other poster" would be wrong as there are very few nations that ban all use of trans fats, of those that do it is generally for prepared to order meals (restaurants) only. The more common practice is to limit the amount of trans fats relative to the total fat content.

Trans fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sangha]

That "other poster" would be wrong as there are very few nations that ban all use of trans fats, of those that do it is generally for prepared to order meals (restaurants) only. The more common practice is to limit the amount of trans fats relative to the total fat content.

Trans fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how that refutes what I said. Several nations have banned it and I see no indication that there has been any controversy over how an essential freedom has been infringed by the ban.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't see how that refutes what I said. Several nations have banned it and I see no indication that there has been any controversy over how an essential freedom has been infringed by the ban.

Can you define which freedoms are essential for me? Many of these nations ban guns as well, since they feel that many freedoms are not essential.

 

[sangha]

Can you define which freedoms are essential for me? Many of these nations ban guns as well, since they feel that many freedoms are not essential.

Like I said, only in America

But just to keep the thread from becoming derailed, I'll point out the unlikelihood that The Framers considered the consumption of trans fats to be an essential freedom.

 

[JumpinJack]

Start searching for zero trans fats food.

Good! There are non-trans fat substitutes. I NEVER cook with trans fats. Why would anyone use that stuff? It's not even food, really.

The bad thing about TFs is that the consumer eating at a restaurant has no way of knowing for sure whether TFs were used or not in the cooking of a dish. Yet, it can do great damage to a body's sytem.

Now that we have to share insurance costs, we all have a stake in the eating habits of others. It's time for this obesity epidemic and unhealthy lifestyle to end. BPA in plastics is still there, while it's banned in most other countries. People here are so fat they need electric chairs to shop at the store. They frequent junk places like McDonald's on a regular basis, knowing full well the sodium, fat, and caloric content of those items is enormous and will make you sick. You ever seen the movie Wall-E? That's where we're headed here in this country.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Could I sell bottled water with cholera in it as long as there was a label somewhere, in small print, reading "contains cholera"?

 

[vesper]

What I find so appalling are those who are so damn willing to piss on another's rights because they think they know what is best for them. How so many will roll over and not even blink an eye while someone else is FORCED to conform. You people have allowed the government into our bedrooms through Obamacare by forcing doctors to ask questions about a patient's sex life. You allow government to infringe on parent's rights on how they must raise their children and deny them rights when it comes to an underage daughter seeking an abortion. You've allowed them into our kitchens and let them decide what we can and can not eat. You want them to control what vehicles we can drive. Why can't you allow people to make their own choices? Because you leftists have this thing about not allowing people to take personal responsibility for those choices. You've got to come to the rescue and save them with a new government program or outright banning something you don't approve.

 

[RDS]

Cholesterol is produced internally, not eaten, says one expert.

Of course, there is no cholesterol in margarine, as cholesterol is only produced by living animals. There is no cholesterol in pretzels either. Yet the breakdown product, glucose, can be transported to the liver producing fat and cholesterol. Thus, a significant component of our cholesterol level is produced internally, not eaten. Ignorance to those simple details has had broad implications, helping to accelerate ridiculous myths that may be partially responsible for Americans' obesity and the diabetes epidemic.

Read more: Trans Fat Isn't Evil, Ignorance Is | Nutrition Health | LiveScience

 

[maquiscat]

Even with labeling, the fact is others are being harmed. The person who is being harmed is not the person who is adding the trans fats to their product. I don't know about you, but when one person does something that harms another person that is harming another person, not oneself.

Even with the warnings of how dangerous activities such as skydiving are, others are being harmed. The person who is harming someone is not the person adding the trans fats, unless they are also forcing it down someone's throat or not informing them of its presence. It is the person who is consuming it, either knowing that it is there, or not bothering to understand what is in what they are consuming. By your logic, even with the warning labels, then the person who puts anything toxic into any product, say sealing foam (because I just had to get some for some home repairs), should it cause harm when it comes into contact with skin is responsible for the harm, instead of the person using it who didn't bother reading the warning label.

Under the law, you can't always do things that harm other people, even if they know about it and consent. If someone were to ask me to shoot them, it would still be illegal for me to do so.

There are many things that are or were law that shouldn't be. In many of these debates we are not talking about what is law, but what should, or shouldn't be. Quite honestly if I asked to be shot by another it should be allowed. I won't derail this thread with the details of it, but suffice it to say there would be provisions to ensure intent on both sides.

More importantly is that you seem to assume that all food products are labeled. When I buy a cake in a bakery, there is no list of ingredients. Restaurants and places that sell prepared foods do not list their ingredients. The claim that a list of ingredients is available, so therefore people know what they're consuming is just not true.

To phrase things as you often do, I have never made such a claim. I am quite ready to admit that the labelling laws need to be more comprehensive and better enforced. My argument is that labelling is the method that maintains the most freedoms and places the responsibility upon the consumer to know what he is ingesting.

And while there are behaviors which have a social cost and are not banned, those activities have some redeeming value, if only recreational.

Since "redeeming" is an opinion based criteria, this is no argument. Lack of a redeeming value is not a reason for banning something.

Could I sell bottled water with cholera in it as long as there was a label somewhere, in small print, reading "contains cholera"?

I would say that a given threat level of a given ingredient would require a given size of warning. IOW's simply mice type wouldn't cut it with certain ingredients. But yes, I wuold say that you should be able to. However, to more directly answer your question, currently ,no you could not.

 

[sangha]

Even with the warnings of how dangerous activities such as skydiving are, others are being harmed. The person who is harming someone is not the person adding the trans fats, unless they are also forcing it down someone's throat or not informing them of its presence. It is the person who is consuming it, either knowing that it is there, or not bothering to understand what is in what they are consuming. By your logic, even with the warning labels, then the person who puts anything toxic into any product, say sealing foam (because I just had to get some for some home repairs), should it cause harm when it comes into contact with skin is responsible for the harm, instead of the person using it who didn't bother reading the warning label.

I don't see how sky diving harms someone else except in the most indirect of ways. And someone who uses a product in a way it's not intended to is not at all analogous to someone who is harmed by using the product in the precise way it is intended to be used.

I can understand why you would see it differently, and you certainly have the right to your own opinion. However, the american people (and societies all over the world) have rejected your type of thinking on this matter. They have banded together and formed a govt with the power to regulate and even ban such things.

There are many things that are or were law that shouldn't be. In many of these debates we are not talking about what is law, but what should, or shouldn't be. Quite honestly if I asked to be shot by another it should be allowed. I won't derail this thread with the details of it, but suffice it to say there would be provisions to ensure intent on both sides.

What should or should not be is a matter of judgement. The way our society is organized is to have a political process by which we make such decisions. To impose a regime that would allow such things merely because a small minority of libertarians thinks it should be different would not be a form of liberty. It would be the opposite. It would be a form of tyranny

To phrase things as you often do, I have never made such a claim. I am quite ready to admit that the labelling laws need to be more comprehensive and better enforced. My argument is that labelling is the method that maintains the most freedoms and places the responsibility upon the consumer to know what he is ingesting.

The freedom to poison others is not one that is widely recognized. In fact, throughout history, it has often been viewed as criminal.

Since "redeeming" is an opinion based criteria, this is no argument. Lack of a redeeming value is not a reason for banning something.

True, lack of redeeming value is not a reason for banning something. Harm is. But the harm can sometimes be weighed against something if it has a redeeming value and lead to something being regulated instead of being banned. In the case of trans fats, there is little to no redeeming value.

I would say that a given threat level of a given ingredient would require a given size of warning. IOW's simply mice type wouldn't cut it with certain ingredients. But yes, I wuold say that you should be able to. However, to more directly answer your question, currently ,no you could not.

Labeling doesn't work. The will of the people, as expressed through the political process, is to ban trans fats. I know that offends the sensibilities of libertarians, but that is of little consequence IMO.

We are talking about the balance between some conceptual "limitation of freedom" and the lives of people. As much as some would like to make this some kind of battle of principles, the fact is that allowing trans fats to be added to food will result in the deaths of many people. Most people put more weight behind the latter. You're free to feel differently. We have a political process by which we resolve these differences and in this case, it seems like it will be resolved in favor of banning trans fats.