[QUOTE=Nightsure;42789856]The statistics of how most (as far as I know) Government-related things (i.e. transfats giving people heart attacks) will have came from institutions that [I]know what they're talking about[/I], obviously anyone can say 'oh, why should I just their word?', though the Government would be in a much bigger problem if they employed people if they didn't know what they were talking about if it affeted the terms of legislation.
As much as you can say "Who are these people to say what makes x safe if it's y saying it?" but I'd tend to trust a food administrations word about food and how it would affect me, they will have thousand upon thousands of statistics proving this shit, so you do just trust their word above yours because what can you say about trans-fats other than they are unhealthy?[/QUOTE]
I've never once argued that trans-fat wasn't bad for you. There are TONS of foods that are bad for you, but people enjoy them a lot. So they eat them (basically all form of store bought candy).
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
As a side note: There have been TONS of things that the government was completely wrong about including, but not limited to: egg yolks being bad for you, eating lots of carbs being the best choice (then changing that to eating barely any carbs being the best choice), etc. etc. etc.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789870]I've never once argued that trans-fat wasn't bad for you. There are TONS of foods that are bad for you, but people enjoy them a lot. So they eat them (basically all form of store bought candy).[/QUOTE]
This debate(?) has turned to shit seeing as how badly you missed the point on my post, you're talking about how you should have access to all statistics proving things, otherwise you may as well make the entire Government transparent which in the big picture wouldn't be good since the we'd [I]know[/I] our Governments were shit.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
I'm fucking off to DD, hoping my automerge is not broken
[QUOTE=Nightsure;42789953]This debate(?) has turned to shit seeing as how badly you missed the point on my post, you're talking about how you should have access to all statistics proving things, otherwise you may as well make the entire Government transparent which in the big picture wouldn't be good since the we'd [I]know[/I] our Governments were shit.
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
I'm fucking off to DD, hoping my automerge is not broken[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make. Your entire post was saying the government statistic about the unhealthiness of trans-fat are reliable. I responded with the fact of trans-fat being bad for you is irrelevant to my argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789870]I've never once argued that trans-fat wasn't bad for you. There are TONS of foods that are bad for you, but people enjoy them a lot. So they eat them (basically all form of store bought candy).
[editline]7th November 2013[/editline]
As a side note: There have been TONS of things that the government was completely wrong about including, but not limited to: egg yolks being bad for you, eating lots of carbs being the best choice (then changing that to eating barely any carbs being the best choice), etc. etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
Funny you should say that. Two egg yolks have 120% of the daily recommended cholesterol for an adult. Carbs are an important part of most diets - if you aren't eating enough but are getting enough fat and protein, eat carbs.
Anyway; that point is pointless. The government is certainly not wrong about trans fats.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789981]Funny you should say that. Two egg yolks have 120% of the daily recommended cholesterol for an adult. Carbs are an important part of most diets - if you aren't eating enough but are getting enough fat and protein, eat carbs.
Anyway; that point is pointless. The government is certainly not wrong about trans fats.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that there are different kind of cholesterol and the way they act in the body isn't at all consistent.
"These findings suggest that consumption of up to 1 egg per day is unlikely to have substantial overall impact on the risk of CHD or stroke among healthy men and women." - [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217054[/URL]
"Evidence from prospective cohort studies suggests that this relatively small increase in circulating cholesterol does not correspond with an increase in CHD risk. In recognition of these facts, advice in relation to eggs as a source of dietary cholesterol has changed in recent years. [B]Most health and heart advisory bodies in the UK, Europe and elsewhere no longer set limits on the number of eggs people should eat[/B], provided they are consumed as part of a healthy diet that is not high in SFA." - [URL]http://drperlmutter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/eggs-are-good.pdf[/URL]
You're right though, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to respond to this, please do. I'll let you have the last word and won't mention it again.
How often are you going to have one egg with your breakfast :wink:
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42790058]How often are you going to have one egg with your breakfast :wink:[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I generally have four with mine and my cholesterol is fine.
I remember this being an episode of King of the hill.
and I believe it was a rather accurate portayal of what would happen if this happened.
Meh. As long as the replacement tastes good I'm just fine with it.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789462]
Dunno how it works across the pond but all cars here have a yearly check (The MOT) to see they pass minimum safety requirements. New cars sold in the UK also have to pass minimum safety requirements or they aren't allowed to be sold here.[/QUOTE]
So what's to stop me from driving that 1980 Civic if it passes MOT? It's my choice, after all, to drive the car that will do poorly in a crash. It's not like a well-kept 1980 Civic is a hazard to other road users, the wheels aren't exactly going to fall off at random or anything, but it isn't exactly going to do me any favors if I crash the thing.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42789649]
If a vehicle is a danger to the driver and/or nearby people, it shouldn't be driven. E.g: Headlights don't work, tyres are about to pop, etc etc. You don't need to be a genius to guess what's likely to kill someone.[/QUOTE]
Other people, sure. But to the driver? If the driver wants to use a Model T to commute to work every day they have the right to do so. There's no reason for the government to go "lol that Model T doesn't have airbags so fuck you and your desire to drive a piece of history to work. Go get a Camry, bitch."
'Course, a Model T isn't exactly a very good daily driver. Hard to drive, shit brakes, shit steering, shit engine. But it'd still be their right to drive it on the road provided it was in good enough condition that it's not going to randomly fall apart in front of other cars.
I do agree that the car a person drives should be in good condition, with at minimum sound brakes, solid steering, sound tires and functioning lights. If I can't steer, stop and see out of a car I'll refuse to drive it, and if the tires have no tread I'll refuse to drive it. It shouldn't be a hazard to other motorists.
But to say they have to drive a modern, safe car instead of a classic that might just kill them in a fender bender simply because some arbitrary government drone deems the classic 'unsafe'? That's about as wrong as letting them drive a dilapidated shitheap everywhere. If someone wants to use an old car that predates crumple zones and airbags as a daily driver they're well within their right to do so as long as their old car is kept in good condition. 'Tis a proven fact that in a classic VS modern crash the modern car will win anyway, so it's not like they're endangering other motorists simply because their car has a few years on it. Just themselves. And if they want to take that risk then let them.
Is that episode of american dad where they smuggle trans fats now relevant?
[img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100829214807/americandad/images/1/16/Whiskers.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Chaoswolf725;42792045]Is that episode of american dad where they smuggle trans fats now relevant?[/QUOTE]
I prefer the King of the Hill Episode about Transfats.
I do not see why they can't just put a warning label on the products. Honestly if you have high cholesterol or are relatively old you should be controlling your diet and the government should not have to. If I am young and healthy an like to eat a bit of processed unhealthy food every once and awhile it won't kill me. Cigarettes and alcohol are way worse for you, but we aren't going to ban them.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42788806]Treating the symptom not the cause.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes that's all you can do. Look at cholera for example.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to treat the underlying cause of obesity in this county, but it's good that we're at least doing something.
How will I get my frosting now :(
Literally the only frosting you can buy off the shelf in the US has a high amount of transfat in it - they simply do -not- make any kind of frosting without hydrodginated oils here for some reason. Probably because it gives the frosting a practically infinite shelf life holds its shape at room temp
[QUOTE=matt000024;42792452]I do not see why they can't just put a warning label on the products. Honestly if you have high cholesterol or are relatively old you should be controlling your diet and the government should not have to. If I am young and healthy an like to eat a bit of processed unhealthy food every once and awhile it won't kill me. Cigarettes and alcohol are way worse for you, but we aren't going to ban them.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand what's going on.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;42792934]I don't think you understand what's going on.[/QUOTE]
I understand exactly what is going on. The government wishes for companies to use safer preservatives, but what I am saying is that the products they are used in really are unhealthy overall so changing this one aspect will not change much.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42789265]Did you purposefully ignore the part where I said I want the government to provide information?
It's so funny to me, you are still in that elitist mindset where you need to take care of the ignorant mindless masses who can't learn and make choices on their own.[/QUOTE]
One of your duties as a productive member of democratic society is to give a damn about your fellow human beings. That's called being an adult. You should try it sometime.
The food companies will (if they haven't already) find some alternative which may or may not be healthier/safer. Let's hope that the search for an alternative doesn't kill people in trial and error.
[QUOTE=Noss;42788945]maybe we should let people decide for themselves what they can eat or something idk[/QUOTE]
Most of the populace isn't "deciding for themselves" since most actually have no idea what the differences between trans and cis fats are and the importance of it. That's not freedom of choice, that's an ignorant choice.
snip I'm late [I]and[/I] wrong
What I find hilarious about this is a long while ago everyone was denouncing saturated fat and demanding transfats to replace them.
Transfats are worse than saturated fats.
[img]http://www.plasticbrickautomaton.com/comics/105.jpg[/img]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Megafan))[/highlight]
They're trying to eliminate a primary cause of heart attacks and obesity since they know targeting the people directly and trying to get everyone to eat healthier would never work since most Americans are stubborn as shit and don't want to bother losing weight or eating healthy.
My view is pretty lopsided on subjects like this being that I'm 18 and weigh just over 130 due to my extremely fast metabolism. I'm certain it's probably difficult to get off your ass and exercise or eat right, but I work out at home 3 times a week and I can eat healthy if I want to. Good food is awesome and all, but it's not a necessary component to living.
One day all of this unhealthy eating is gonna catch up to me and I'm gonna become a god damn fat neckbeard. That'll suck. :v:
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42793575]Transfats are worse than saturated fats.[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware, it's just people literally used to believe them to be better.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42788847]They add partially hydrogenated oils to food to make it taste more delicious. Transfats are both natural and man-made, and they are trying to ban the man-made transfats from being added to food.[/QUOTE]
Natural trans fats are rare, at best
There's literally no reason to use trans fat. It's not used for taste, it's used for food preservation; food preservation is not relevant to what a consumer buys. Have as much saturated fat as you want, there's no evidence (or even correlation for that matter) that it's bad for you
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;42793115]One of your duties as a productive member of democratic society is to give a damn about your fellow human beings. That's called being an adult. You should try it sometime.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing stopping you from giving a damn about your fellow human beings. However, making it illegal for them to make a choice that goes contrary to your advice isn't being caring, you're disregarding whatever other motivations they would have had for making the choice. If they're fully aware of all sides to the argument about whether people should consume trans fat, and they decide that the consumption of it works out best for them personally, why should you get in the way of that?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;42788848]So there will only be cis fats now? wow discrimination[/QUOTE]
*looks at username*
*looks at post*
*head explodes*
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;42793115]One of your duties as a productive member of democratic society is to give a damn about your fellow human beings. [/quote] Erm, no. No it isn't. The only duties as a productive member of a democratic society that anyone has are A: Don't cause a riot B: follow the rules C: pay your taxes on time, and D: jury duty. Nowhere are you required to care about anyone.
Better late than never.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
