This seems like an eminently reasonable thing to do. Which is why I'm waiting to hear that the House will be passing the "American Donut Freedom Act" any day now, taking away the FDA's charter to do anything about trans fats.
Embedded Link
F.D.A. Ruling Would All but Eliminate Trans Fats
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed measures that would all but eliminate artificial trans fats, the artery-clogging substance that is a major contributor to heart disease.
62 view(s)
Yes, because we the people aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves.
If the government were serious about "looking out for our health", they'd ban smoking and alcohol…..things that are much deadlier than "trans fats".
I guess the trans fat folks aren't kicking back enough.
if the government really cared about our health, they'd make it against the law for a salad at McDonald's to cost the same as a burger, fries, and drink.
It is the illusion of caring. Banning trans-fats in NYC didn't change a thing, but cost a fortune in inspecting. Just another way to spend money.
I say we legalize trans-fats and decriminalize salty foods! snerk
+Mark Means No, because there's no compelling reasons for companies to add trans fats to their products, and they're shown to be harmful. It's not "the government is banning cookies" but "the government is banning cookies flavored with mercury."
+Andrew Eva Well the nice thing about this is that it doesn't require an inspection regime.
the FDA won't need to validate products don't have transfats?
But, if a product that is out there that is nothing but harmful chemicals, it's o.k?
Is there a good reason to smoke cigarettes or drink?
Nope.
People know about transfats, for whatever reason they're added to foods, and it should fall to the individual to choose whether they want to eat them….
…just like they choose to smoke or drink.
I'm not disagreeing with your argument +Mark Means. in fact I tend to agree. But there are plenty of Good reasons to drink in moderation. It's relaxing, it's delicious, it facilitates social interaction and it is probably a health benefit. So it's not that cut and dried.
It's easy to avoid trans fats as well. Just eat only real food and avoid the processed stuff.
+Andrew Eva It's one thing to see if businesses in New York are using products that are commercially available that have trans fats. It's another thing to tell business across the nation, "Don't use this, and if we find you are, you are in big trouble." As companies are required to note what they are including in their foods (including, at the moment, trans fats), that seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't assume any additional testing needed.
True, +Shannon Turlington ….maybe I should have added "to excess".
The bottom line, for me, is that it should be a choice.
I thought Liberals were all for "choices"? 🙂
+Dave Hill they will stil l have to spot check on import, approve new products, etc… to say that banning something has no overhead because "if we find you are, you are in big trouble"… someone has to be checking in order to find out if they are doing it and right now, nobody is checking which means it is more work for someone to start checking.
+Mark Means I think there is a difference between saying "You can't have this additive/ingredient in the food products you're producing" and "You can't sell this (food) product at all." Especially when the effect on the food market is relatively small.
That's why, in part, I would oppose a ban on donuts, or on alcohol, or on french fries.
+Andrew Eva I think it become part of whatever other testing is already being done.
We tried banning alcohol, remember? It doesn't work.
No, it… [hic!] doesn't.
+Dave Hill I don't see a difference, at all.
It's still the government saying "We know what's best for you."
And, obviously, they do not .
Actually, in this particular case, at least, it's pretty clear they do.
You see no difference at all between outlawing an ingredient and a product? I guess we had to stop building ships when asbestos was banned, since that outlawed construction materials. Or did we just reduce the risk of mesothelioma for everybody who works aboard or travels on ships while slightly inconveniencing manufacturers?
There are plenty of less harmful things the industries can use. This is on par with saying that soda companies can't sweeten their drinks using antifreeze. (Which, by the way, they can't! Shock! Write your congressman, quick; the FDA is limiting our freedoms!!) The only issue here is that for a while, we thought trans fats were OK, so now they're common and have to actually be thought about. It's not actually a big controversy, even for the industries using them, most of whom have already cut way back.
Honestly, for a landmark, "The FDA is back!" kind of ruling, it's pretty tame.
+Scott Randel From a government interference standpoint, I see no difference.
Some people eat transfats their entire life with zero effect. Others never touch the stuff and still wind up with clogged arteries….go figure.
You could make that same argument about any law ever passed. It hinges on a logical fallacy.