Forgot your password?

WRT trans fats, the FDA should ...

Displaying poll results.
Ban 'em outright
  7189 votes / 39%
Regulate with a heavy hand, but not ban.
  2092 votes / 11%
Regulate moderately; labels & limits.
  2113 votes / 11%
Try to nix egregious or unlabeled use.
  1712 votes / 9%
Stay out of my cabinet and grocery store!
  2773 votes / 15%
Die in a Twinkie fire!
  2434 votes / 13%
18313 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WRT trans fats, the FDA should ...

Comments Filter:
  • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:03PM (#45360375) Homepage Journal
    You see this a lot with automatic sentencing and the like. It ends up being a "no common sense" policy that ends up hurting people only tangentially related to the original problem. The better solution is a general ban on use, but allow exceptions for cases where it makes sense.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @04:29PM (#45360791)

    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.

  • by bziman (223162) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:00PM (#45361283) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07, 2013 @05:29PM (#45361659)

    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.

  • by rjhubs (929158) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @06:12PM (#45362161)
    Is Twitter imposing some sort character limit on Slashdot? Is there not enough space for "With regards to"? WTFWAFFEL
  • by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe@jwsmyth ... minus physicist> on Thursday November 07, 2013 @09:16PM (#45364047) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by Nemyst (1383049) on Thursday November 07, 2013 @10:19PM (#45364439) Homepage
    That's disingenuous and you know it. Ingesting trans fat rarely is a choice; given the possibility to take trans fat and non-trans fat food (and assuming they know the implications of trans fat), I don't think anyone would pick the first option. The reasons for consuming trans fat are usually money and ignorance, not "lifestyle", and banning trans fat is pretty much the best way to stop it from causing trouble in this scenario. If handled properly it should have a minimal impact on food prices.

    Remember, this isn't about banning meat or something. It's about banning something which only has an upside for the manufacturer.
  • by wagnerrp (1305589) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @10:53AM (#45377253)
    Is it just me, or is anyone else turned off by products that contain "Earth" or "green"? It just gives me the impression that they're using the term to jack up the price for trendy assholes that flock to such buzzwords.

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

 



Forgot your password?
Working...