Trans fats: FDA moves to reduce artery-clogger trans fats in processed foods

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 11:50 AM GMT
    The FDA needs to stay out of our dining rooms.
    Fight back by eating all the trans fats you want.
    While you're at it, add 2 scoops of a banned pesticide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 12:36 PM GMT
    Lifter4ever saidThe FDA needs to stay out of our dining rooms.
    Fight back by eating all the trans fats you want.
    While you're at it, add 2 scoops of a banned pesticide.


    Fortunately for you and everyone else they've been looking out for American interests. I mean thank goodness... can you imagine how fat and healthyAmericans would be if it weren't for the FDA.

    Oh. Wait a minute...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 2:44 PM GMT


    The hilarity of this debate is that all these guys who have tried to ban trans fats from their own diet are trying to champion the crap for everyone else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 3:19 PM GMT
    Lifter4ever said

    The hilarity of this debate is that all these guys who have tried to ban trans fats from their own diet are trying to champion the crap for everyone else.


    The real hilarity is that there many of us who believe there should be a choice and you'd rather it taken away.

    Again, the fact that the FDA has gotten it wrong consistently should be cause for concern that their role should be restricted to education rather than the heavy hand of banning. And if they are banning, then they should accept full liability when they get it wrong.

    It's not particularly funny that those like you enabled the FDA first to have McDonald's get rid of other fats for frying their fries in favor of transfats and now you support those transfats being banned.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 3:41 PM GMT
    I find it amazing that liberals have no problem with this kind of government mandate of what is good and bad but when it comes to the bedroom or a woman's body they demand the government "stay out"! The hypocrisy is hilarious..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 3:47 PM GMT
    gatorball saidI find it amazing that liberals have no problem with this kind of government mandate of what is good and bad but when it comes to the bedroom or a woman's body they demand the government "stay out"! The hypocrisy is hilarious..


    lol, what?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 4:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Lifter4ever said

    The hilarity of this debate is that all these guys who have tried to ban trans fats from their own diet are trying to champion the crap for everyone else.


    The real hilarity is that there many of us who believe there should be a choice and you'd rather it taken away.

    Again, the fact that the FDA has gotten it wrong consistently should be cause for concern that their role should be restricted to education rather than the heavy hand of banning. And if they are banning, then they should accept full liability when they get it wrong.

    It's not particularly funny that those like you enabled the FDA first to have McDonald's get rid of other fats for frying their fries in favor of transfats and now you support those transfats being banned.



    LOL What? I did not enable the FDA to have McDonald's get rid of other fats in favor of trans fats. Furthermore, the FDA did no such thing.
    McDonald's recently stopped using trans fats in response to consumer demand.

    Krishna have mercy on all my future incarnations, I can't believe I'm defending a federal agency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 4:12 PM GMT
    somersault said
    gatorball saidI find it amazing that liberals have no problem with this kind of government mandate of what is good and bad but when it comes to the bedroom or a woman's body they demand the government "stay out"! The hypocrisy is hilarious..


    lol, what?


    lol, I think a woman's body should be full of trans fats
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 4:20 PM GMT
    Follow up. Got any examples of the FDA consistently getting banning wrong?

    There are examples of the agency giving approval to ingredients but then later banning said substances after review of health studies.
    Daminozide, aka Alar, is one.

    Anyone missing Daminozide in his diet should be able to order it from China and use it as freely as he wishes. I mean he should be able to use it on his own food, not on food he's selling me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 5:46 PM GMT
    Okay. As long as cigarettes are legal to produce, I don't think the FDA should ban trans-fats. There's a hypocrisy there that can't go unnoticed: there are recognized detriments to the consumption of trans-fats, but there are even more found in the use of modern cigarettes.

    Instead of banning trans-fats, require that any food product produced using hydrogenation methods to incorporate trans-fats put that information on their label. "This product contains Trans-Fats." Then leave it to the consumer to decide whether they buy it or not. Now, this post is going to get a lot longer.

    The following is a quote directly from the FDA Labeling & Nutrition Regulatory Information webpage, and you can read all of it by clicking here.

    Labeling Nutrition, L44 - L46 and L48L44. Do trans fatty acids need to be listed when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed?
    Answer: Yes. The listing of trans fatty acids is mandatory even when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed. 21 CFR 101.9(c), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv).

    L45. How should trans fatty acids be listed?
    Answer: Trans fatty acids should be listed as “Trans fat” or “Trans” on a separate line under the listing of saturated fat in the Nutrition Facts label (see figure). The word “trans” may be italicized to indicate its Latin origin. Trans fat content must be expressed as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5-gram increment below 5 grams and to the nearest gram above 5 grams. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content, when declared, must be expressed as “0 g.” (21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)).

    L46. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram of trans fat, when would “0 g” of trans fat not have to be declared?
    Answer: For conventional food products (those food products other than dietary supplements), declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is not required for such products that contain less than 0.5 g of total fat in a serving and no claims are made about fat, fatty acid or cholesterol content. If trans fat is not listed, the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” may be placed at the bottom of the table of nutrient values in lieu of declaring “0 g” of trans fat. If these claims are present, then the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” is not an option and the declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is required. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)

    [...]

    L48. Is it possible for a food product to list the amount of trans fat as 0 g on the Nutrition Facts label if the ingredient list indicates that it contains “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil?”
    Answer: Yes. Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram (½ g) as 0 (zero) on the Nutrition Facts label. As a result, consumers may see a few products that list 0 gram trans fat on the label, while the ingredient list will have “shortening” or “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” on it. This means the food contains very small amounts (less than 0.5 g) of trans fat per serving.


    Now, the end of the answer to L48 is I think, by far, the most important point I have to make here. Even if a product contains the byproducts of hydrogenation, as long as the amounts of Trans Fats are less than 0.5 grams, they don't have to list it as containing any. The more striking point? This is per serving. So if you have a product with a very small serving size, but a large volume of the product itself (a box of 100 chips, in which 7 chips is a serving), and the amount of Trans Fats is say, 0.4 grams per serving, then that bag of chips contains ~5.6 grams of Trans Fats--and yet they get to put on the label, "Contains 0 grams of Trans Fats!" Usually however, if you look closely at the tiny lettering under it, you'll see they often do add the words, Per Serving*.

    In any case, it strikes me as rather dishonest for them to say that, regardless of the qualifying statement of "per serving" at the end. Even if it's under 0.5 Grams, I think they should still be required to list it. But banning it is a heavy handed move that directly affects the industry--private businesses who produce these foods are being forced by the government to change their ways, and that isn't cool.

    Not so long as tobacco companies can continue to produce cigarettes, at least.

    *Note that information not quoted here may not be entirely accurate. I'm responding to this with the best of my knowledge in light of the research I've done putting this post together, but I admit I'm human and I know there is a chance I may be wrong. Bring out the skeptic in you, and make sure my information is correct before spreading it about!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 11, 2013 6:38 PM GMT
    Kodiak saidOkay. As long as cigarettes are legal to produce, I don't think the FDA should ban trans-fats. There's a hypocrisy there that can't go unnoticed: there are recognized detriments to the consumption of trans-fats, but there are even more found in the use of modern cigarettes.

    Instead of banning trans-fats, require that any food product produced using hydrogenation methods to incorporate trans-fats put that information on their label. "This product contains Trans-Fats." Then leave it to the consumer to decide whether they buy it or not. Now, this post is going to get a lot longer.

    The following is a quote directly from the FDA Labeling & Nutrition Regulatory Information webpage, and you can read all of it by clicking here.

    Labeling Nutrition, L44 - L46 and L48L44. Do trans fatty acids need to be listed when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed?
    Answer: Yes. The listing of trans fatty acids is mandatory even when mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids are not listed. 21 CFR 101.9(c), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv).

    L45. How should trans fatty acids be listed?
    Answer: Trans fatty acids should be listed as “Trans fat” or “Trans” on a separate line under the listing of saturated fat in the Nutrition Facts label (see figure). The word “trans” may be italicized to indicate its Latin origin. Trans fat content must be expressed as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5-gram increment below 5 grams and to the nearest gram above 5 grams. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content, when declared, must be expressed as “0 g.” (21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)).

    L46. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram of trans fat, when would “0 g” of trans fat not have to be declared?
    Answer: For conventional food products (those food products other than dietary supplements), declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is not required for such products that contain less than 0.5 g of total fat in a serving and no claims are made about fat, fatty acid or cholesterol content. If trans fat is not listed, the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” may be placed at the bottom of the table of nutrient values in lieu of declaring “0 g” of trans fat. If these claims are present, then the statement “Not a significant source of trans fat” is not an option and the declaration of “0 g” of trans fat is required. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii)

    [...]

    L48. Is it possible for a food product to list the amount of trans fat as 0 g on the Nutrition Facts label if the ingredient list indicates that it contains “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil?”
    Answer: Yes. Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram (½ g) as 0 (zero) on the Nutrition Facts label. As a result, consumers may see a few products that list 0 gram trans fat on the label, while the ingredient list will have “shortening” or “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” on it. This means the food contains very small amounts (less than 0.5 g) of trans fat per serving.


    Now, the end of the answer to L48 is I think, by far, the most important point I have to make here. Even if a product contains the byproducts of hydrogenation, as long as the amounts of Trans Fats are less than 0.5 grams, they don't have to list it as containing any. The more striking point? This is per serving. So if you have a product with a very small serving size, but a large volume of the product itself (a box of 100 chips, in which 7 chips is a serving), and the amount of Trans Fats is say, 0.4 grams per serving, then that bag of chips contains ~5.6 grams of Trans Fats--and yet they get to put on the label, "Contains 0 grams of Trans Fats!" Usually however, if you look closely at the tiny lettering under it, you'll see they often do add the words, Per Serving*.

    In any case, it strikes me as rather dishonest for them to say that, regardless of the qualifying statement of "per serving" at the end. Even if it's under 0.5 Grams, I think they should still be required to list it. But banning it is a heavy handed move that directly affects the industry--private businesses who produce these foods are being forced by the government to change their ways, and that isn't cool.

    Not so long as tobacco companies can continue to produce cigarettes, at least.

    *Note that information not quoted here may not be entirely accurate. I'm responding to this with the best of my knowledge in light of the research I've done putting this post together, but I admit I'm human and I know there is a chance I may be wrong. Bring out the skeptic in you, and make sure my information is correct before spreading it about!

    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 6:42 PM GMT
    No more pie...?

    icon_cry.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 11, 2013 6:51 PM GMT
    turbobilly saidNo more pie...?

    icon_cry.gif

    Pie was invented before Trans fats, silly.icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 7:23 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Kodiak said[...] Blah blah blah about trans fats, but did mention banning cigarettes [...]

    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.


    You're right, and I did completely overlook that. And though it doesn't really change anything, I more meant it from a production angle: Trans Fats are a singular ingredient/byproduct, linked to Coronary Heart Disease, while Cigarettes contain at least fifty ingredients/chemicals known to cause a variety of effects detrimental to one's health, the most well known being cancer. So which is worse?

    But you're right about the black-market perspective! I don't much see a horde of people gathered secretly in a dark room beneath the city streets, covertly smuggling in cases of Twinkies and selling them at ridiculous prices--as good a mock spy movie that would make! But I definitely know the food industry will manage--again, I was more voicing my opinion on government regulation: If the FDA is able to step in and ban something that isn't as bad as other things we already have on the market, should that be considered overstepping their bounds, or is it worth contesting? That leads into a freedoms topic, which is more what I was focused on there. And I do know there are people who want to eat that shit. Having worked in grocery and retail, I've sold plenty of that shit to folks who absolutely wanted it.

    Other than that, I wasn't trying to be dramatic, and am disappointed if that's how I sounded! I try to base my opinion on facts obtained through research, and to remove as much of a dramatic element as I can. But text isn't the most accurate means of conveying opinion, as it's not always authentic in conveying emotions felt when typing! I'll try to sound more neutral in the future.
  • aax_aax_aax

    Posts: 83

    Nov 11, 2013 8:08 PM GMT
    Kodiak said
    HottJoe said
    Kodiak said[...] Blah blah blah about trans fats, but did mention banning cigarettes [...]

    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.


    You're right, and I did completely overlook that. And though it doesn't really change anything, I more meant it from a production angle: Trans Fats are a singular ingredient/byproduct, linked to Coronary Heart Disease, while Cigarettes contain at least fifty ingredients/chemicals known to cause a variety of effects detrimental to one's health, the most well known being cancer. So which is worse?

    But you're right about the black-market perspective! I don't much see a horde of people gathered secretly in a dark room beneath the city streets, covertly smuggling in cases of Twinkies and selling them at ridiculous prices--as good a mock spy movie that would make! But I definitely know the food industry will manage--again, I was more voicing my opinion on government regulation: If the FDA is able to step in and ban something that isn't as bad as other things we already have on the market, should that be considered overstepping their bounds, or is it worth contesting? That leads into a freedoms topic, which is more what I was focused on there. And I do know there are people who want to eat that shit. Having worked in grocery and retail, I've sold plenty of that shit to folks who absolutely wanted it.

    Other than that, I wasn't trying to be dramatic, and am disappointed if that's how I sounded! I try to base my opinion on facts obtained through research, and to remove as much of a dramatic element as I can. But text isn't the most accurate means of conveying opinion, as it's not always authentic in conveying emotions felt when typing! I'll try to sound more neutral in the future.


    To ban trans-fat seems bit harsh and unreal (at least to me), and personally think that just labeling it makes no change.. If all the food contains trans-fat, than you don't really have an option - that's pretty much the same thing with toothpaste and fluoride.. And the downside is that if you do have products that are labeled trans-fat free, they would cost more, so once again healthcare becomes worse for not so wealthy people.. Tax is the only good option i can think of, to have higher taxes for crappy food in general!
  • metta

    Posts: 54966

    Nov 11, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    Well, I like the idea of being able to go to a restaurant and not having to eat that stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 9:58 PM GMT
    aax_aax_aax said
    Kodiak said
    HottJoe said
    Kodiak said[...] Blah blah blah about trans fats, but did mention banning cigarettes [...]

    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.


    You're right, and I did completely overlook that. And though it doesn't really change anything, I more meant it from a production angle: Trans Fats are a singular ingredient/byproduct, linked to Coronary Heart Disease, while Cigarettes contain at least fifty ingredients/chemicals known to cause a variety of effects detrimental to one's health, the most well known being cancer. So which is worse?

    But you're right about the black-market perspective! I don't much see a horde of people gathered secretly in a dark room beneath the city streets, covertly smuggling in cases of Twinkies and selling them at ridiculous prices--as good a mock spy movie that would make! But I definitely know the food industry will manage--again, I was more voicing my opinion on government regulation: If the FDA is able to step in and ban something that isn't as bad as other things we already have on the market, should that be considered overstepping their bounds, or is it worth contesting? That leads into a freedoms topic, which is more what I was focused on there. And I do know there are people who want to eat that shit. Having worked in grocery and retail, I've sold plenty of that shit to folks who absolutely wanted it.

    Other than that, I wasn't trying to be dramatic, and am disappointed if that's how I sounded! I try to base my opinion on facts obtained through research, and to remove as much of a dramatic element as I can. But text isn't the most accurate means of conveying opinion, as it's not always authentic in conveying emotions felt when typing! I'll try to sound more neutral in the future.


    To ban trans-fat seems bit harsh and unreal (at least to me), and personally think that just labeling it makes no change.. If all the food contains trans-fat, than you don't really have an option - that's pretty much the same thing with toothpaste and fluoride.. And the downside is that if you do have products that are labeled trans-fat free, they would cost more, so once again healthcare becomes worse for not so wealthy people.. Tax is the only good option i can think of, to have higher taxes for crappy food in general!


    Tax is only a halfway measure.

    The problem is, the for-profit food industry. Food, like health care, is a basic necessity. It should not be left up to a for-profit group of mega-companies.

    Just like we should have single-payer government run health care, we should have a government grown / created / produced / distributed food chain.

    I don't understand why people don't get this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2013 10:16 PM GMT
    turbobilly saidNo more pie...?

    icon_cry.gif


    I love pie with a lump of trans fat on top icon_smile.gif

    cherry-pie-a-la-mode_i-G-38-3846-XQLYF00
  • aax_aax_aax

    Posts: 83

    Nov 11, 2013 10:16 PM GMT
    VillageMike said
    aax_aax_aax said
    Kodiak said
    HottJoe said
    Kodiak said[...] Blah blah blah about trans fats, but did mention banning cigarettes [...]

    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.


    You're right, and I did completely overlook that. And though it doesn't really change anything, I more meant it from a production angle: Trans Fats are a singular ingredient/byproduct, linked to Coronary Heart Disease, while Cigarettes contain at least fifty ingredients/chemicals known to cause a variety of effects detrimental to one's health, the most well known being cancer. So which is worse?

    But you're right about the black-market perspective! I don't much see a horde of people gathered secretly in a dark room beneath the city streets, covertly smuggling in cases of Twinkies and selling them at ridiculous prices--as good a mock spy movie that would make! But I definitely know the food industry will manage--again, I was more voicing my opinion on government regulation: If the FDA is able to step in and ban something that isn't as bad as other things we already have on the market, should that be considered overstepping their bounds, or is it worth contesting? That leads into a freedoms topic, which is more what I was focused on there. And I do know there are people who want to eat that shit. Having worked in grocery and retail, I've sold plenty of that shit to folks who absolutely wanted it.

    Other than that, I wasn't trying to be dramatic, and am disappointed if that's how I sounded! I try to base my opinion on facts obtained through research, and to remove as much of a dramatic element as I can. But text isn't the most accurate means of conveying opinion, as it's not always authentic in conveying emotions felt when typing! I'll try to sound more neutral in the future.


    To ban trans-fat seems bit harsh and unreal (at least to me), and personally think that just labeling it makes no change.. If all the food contains trans-fat, than you don't really have an option - that's pretty much the same thing with toothpaste and fluoride.. And the downside is that if you do have products that are labeled trans-fat free, they would cost more, so once again healthcare becomes worse for not so wealthy people.. Tax is the only good option i can think of, to have higher taxes for crappy food in general!


    Tax is only a halfway measure.

    The problem is, the for-profit food industry. Food, like health care, is a basic necessity. It should not be left up to a for-profit group of mega-companies.

    Just like we should have single-payer government run health care, we should have a government grown / created / produced / distributed food chain.

    I don't understand why people don't get this.


    You're right, but i just gave a simple half-solution that doesn't include huge revolution of western world (especially US). Sure, food and healthcare should never be left to mega-companies, but nor should transport, energy, banking or housing, just to name few.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 12:24 AM GMT
    Lifter4ever said
    LOL What? I did not enable the FDA to have McDonald's get rid of other fats in favor of trans fats. Furthermore, the FDA did no such thing.
    McDonald's recently stopped using trans fats in response to consumer demand.

    Krishna have mercy on all my future incarnations, I can't believe I'm defending a federal agency.


    This is a perfect example, thank you. Consumer education resulted in consumer demand that forced McDonald's to change its behavior in order to maximize its profits. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, and that level of government involvement is appropriate.

    It did not require the FDA coming in and forcing McDonald's to change. It just took some good ol' market forces. It did not require forcing people to change their behavior involuntarily.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 12:26 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    One thing you're overlooking entirely is that criminalizing cigarettes/tobacco will just put those items on the black market. People will break the law to have tobacco. That scenario wouldn't happen with trans fat. Sorry to the companies who put poison in our food supply. If they need to get shut down, then they need to get shut down. No one wants to eat that shit. Besides, I think you're being overly dramatic. The food industry will manage.


    Oh, I think there are a lot of people who would embrace a life of crime to get their twinkie fix.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 12:29 AM GMT
    metta8 saidWell, I like the idea of being able to go to a restaurant and not having to eat that stuff.


    Then that's a perfect opportunity for capitalism to swoop in and meet your consumer demand for healthier options (which many have). You don't need the federal overlords to accomplish that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 12:31 AM GMT
    VillageMike said

    Tax is only a halfway measure.

    The problem is, the for-profit food industry. Food, like health care, is a basic necessity. It should not be left up to a for-profit group of mega-companies.

    Just like we should have single-payer government run health care, we should have a government grown / created / produced / distributed food chain.

    I don't understand why people don't get this.


    People do get it. They just don't want to starve.

    Remember the good ol' days of the Soviet Union? All that government grown / created / produced / distributed food chain. It's no wonder we defeated those fat lardasses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2013 2:21 AM GMT
    tantiboh said
    metta8 saidWell, I like the idea of being able to go to a restaurant and not having to eat that stuff.


    Then that's a perfect opportunity for capitalism to swoop in and meet your consumer demand for healthier options (which many have). You don't need the federal overlords to accomplish that.


    But there are many people who do not know about these foods that are dangerous. The government must ban these ingredients.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 12, 2013 2:29 AM GMT
    tantiboh said
    metta8 saidWell, I like the idea of being able to go to a restaurant and not having to eat that stuff.


    Then that's a perfect opportunity for capitalism to swoop in and meet your consumer demand for healthier options (which many have). You don't need the federal overlords to accomplish that.

    McDonalds uses Trans Fat. People aren't going to boycott McDonalds. They just need to stop using Trans Fat, either voluntarily or by law.