News-Record.com

Don't laugh Steve, some cities are already banning trans fats at all restaurants.

Don't be ridiculous. Transfats are not an "activity", thjey are an artificial poison foisted on us by corporations who put profit ahead of human life. They have known for years the stuff is poison. I would hardly call the right to corporate deception and mass poisoning a constitutional right.
I do agree with the writer, but to juxtapose seat belt laws with the intentional sale of poison as food is ridiculous.
True, some people would still eat poison if your wrapped in a McDonald's bag and told them it was delicious and added artificial flavors---wait, that is what they are already doing.
NOT a libertarian issue, the right to sell poison dressed up as food.

I saw some black helicopters today too Vers.

Trans fats are not an activity but EATING trans fats is an activity.

Those eeeeevvvvviiiiillll corporations are out to poison their customers until the last one is gone eh? Oooppps, now they don't have anymore customers, no more profits. It is no longer amazing to me, pathetic however, that people like you actually think corporations are plotting to kill their customers in the name of profit. Do you ever buy anything made from a corporation?

Actually the opposite is happening, consumers are getting educated and realize that trans fats are not healthy. Consumers demand healthier foods and corporations respond. If you don't believe me go take a walk in the grocery store and count how many "trans fat free" products you find.

Everything in moderation. A trans fat containing donut once every couple weeks isn't going to hurt.

I'd love to hear some more corporate conspiracy theories, they are quite entertaining.

No Dan, you are attempting to divert attention from my argument by suggesting that I said something I did not say. I never said Corporations are trying to kill their customers. Neither were the tobacco companies. I believe that hydrogenated oils and transfats were developed because they improved taste and shelf life. I also believe that our system does not allow a corporation to admit it made a mistake without being swarmed by lawyers. I also believe that there are some greedy people who just don't care and who put profits ahead of people.

"Trans Fat Free" means there is less than 1 gram per "serving". It does not actually mean that the product is free of trans fats. Read the label: there are many products that say trans fat free that contain hydrogenated oils which are, by definition, trans fats. One part of the label says 0g of trans fats while the other part of the label lists a trans fat as an ingredient. There is actually no safe level of trans fats. I am not suggesting that your occasional donut will kill you, but then again even a little arsenic won't kill you. The effect is cumulative.

As for conspiracies, only you used the word. However, large agribusiness did collectively intervene to redefine what goes on the label. Once, if the serving contained more than zero grams of an ingredient, it listed the ingredient as <1g. So 1/10 of a gram was listed as <1 as was 9/10 of a gram. Now, just for trans fats, they have changed the rule: less than a gram of trans fat is listed as 0g.

I am interested in hearing your take on why these products are safe despite all evidence to the contrary. Or do we have to damage another generation of Americans in order to finally, one day, sheepishly admit that yes, cigarettes are bad for you, yes, trans fats will kill you slowly, yes we always said they are safe even while our own internal studies said they were not.

Here is my take on this: there is a point in which we have to call the truth. We can play partisans, we can talk about black helicopters, we can spin and spin and spin. It changes nothing. The fact is that trans fats are a slow poison. If you really want to give people a choice, then you should agree that a free flow of information is required in order to make that choice. Since we can't seem to get a free flow of information, we have little choice but to act in defense of our our people. All threats foreign and domestic, right?

I mean, the government has acknowledged tapping millions of phones, albeit electronically with no one at the earphones, without warrants for a long time. Why do people stand up and defend government meddling in that case then complain about motorcycle helmets and trans fats? Seems our priorities are a bit whacked.

I don't go much for conspiracy theories despite your assertion. Corporations aren't all bad, I own one with 22 employees. Yet I would not knowingly sell you something I understood to be harmful, legal or not.
I also do not cheat on my taxes, but I am a small businessman and don't have the major resources and big time lawyers to get away with such behavior. Like WalMart avoiding taxes in North Carolina and 27 other states with a ponzi scheme. But hey, no conspiracy, right?
Or tobacco companies conducting studies for decades--really, decades---and withholding results that they didn't want people to see. Ever read or hear a cigarette ad from the '60s or 70s'? But, no conspiracies, right?
I am still interested in hearing what you have to say.

I agree 100% with the letter writer. We've been hearing about less government for the last 16 years but all we keep seeing is more government. Slippery slopes began many years ago....they keep getting slipperier (sp).

I actually support the seatbelt law due to the fact that an unbelted adult could turn into a projectile in case of an accident and cause injury or death to other occupants or innocent bystanders.

A rider without a helmet is only going to hurt themselves. I believe people should always be allowed to hurt themselves.

May be cheaper in the long run too. Instead of caring to rehab a severely screwed up accident victim with multiple broken bones, just pay for a death certificate.

"Now, just for trans fats, they have changed the rule: less than a gram of trans fat is listed as 0g."

Thanks Vers, I have to admit I learned something. After reading this I took a visit to the pantry. I looked at Wheat Thins, various crackers, cereals, nuts, and my favorite spread Smart Balance. Most of the products that indicated no trans fats had nothing hydrogenated in the ingredient list.

I did however find three products, Froot Loops, Reduced Fat Cheez-Its, and Old El Paso taco shells that all listed hydrogenated oils but "0" trans fats. The taco shells even had an asterisk by the word hydrogenated *. Underneath it states "Adds a trivial amount of trans fat".

Yet another reason for me to convince my wife not to buy Froot Loops. She tends to let the kids have too much say so in food purchases. Last week they came home with Scooby Doo apple sauce. The stuff was blue!!

I agree with you that any amount of trans fats should be labeled on the package. Then the consumer can make his/her decision. I don't agree that cities and other govt. entities should legislate what we can or cannot eat.

Back to your post. I apologize for the black helicopter term and can understand your argument. I still believe most, I say most, corporations want to provide safe products. Hell it's in their best interest, they will both lose sales and face lawsuits. Witness the recent discovery of lead in Chinese made toys. What happened? The toy companies had to recall boat loads of toys, it was all over the media, and sales dropped. That costs mega bucks.

As for cigarettes, the packages have carried warning labels for over 40 years now. I agree that tobacco companies should not be granted sainthood, however anyone who doesn't know cigarettes are harmful must live in a hole. My dad figured that out in 1955 and quit smoking, that was before warning labels were placed on cig packages.

I have no problem with govt. banning smoking in public places or private establishments deciding to ban smoking (it's banned in my home), but I do have a problem with govt. forcing private establishment owners to ban smoking. If a restaurant chooses to allow smoking I'll take my business elsewhere. I don't have that option in visiting a court house, airport or other public place.

Wal-Mart, seems alot of crooked corporations come from Arkansas, Tyson is another. I'm glad you don't cheat on your taxes :)

Dan, Thanks for the reasonable response. I have to admit my first post was a bit rantish and could have been construed as black helicopter conspiracy theory.
I do believe that most corps--99.9%-- are just trying to make a buck by building a better moustrap.
I should speak in specifics all of the time since it seems to invite civilized discourse better than ranting.
I like nitpickers comment because the rule he seems to use is: "If people want to kill themselves, no problem. If their behavior is a risk to others, that's a problem." would be a great rule for government to live by.

No problem Vers, glad we could settle down. You work in the food business? How did you know so much about package labeling for trans fats?

I can mostly agree that if behavior is a risk to others that's a problem. I say mostly as exceptions can always be made.

Example: if I choose to visit a bar that allows smoking and breathe in harmful second hand smoke, then someones behavior could be considered a risk to me in this instance. Therefore should the govt. ban smoking in the bar? I say no because I made the choice to visit the bar knowing that second hand smoke is dangerous.

As for Nit's seat belt argument, I've never heard of someone hurting another after being ejected from a car, but it's probably happened. Using that logic, what about motorcycles? A motorcycle rider will more likely be ejected in an accident than a car driver and potentially hurt others. So should the govt. either ban motorcycles or require seat belts on them?

If you ride a motorcycle it's important to understand the risks and be prepared for them. A client of mine got hit by an 18 wheeler while riding a motorcycle. All the helmet did was keep her head intact but she died of massive injuries to her body.

I do agree with the laws that require children to use seatbelts and car seats as they are too young to understand the danger of not doing so. I don't have to remind my 6 and 5 year olds to buckle up, they automatically do it.

Good questions, Dan. I see your point. I will just have to say that careful thought should be given before government intervention. Public hearings from the people affected seem at least a first step.
As for the bar argument, it goes along with the food argument: good labeling and good information mean informed decisions.
For example, there is a bar/restaurant on Market St. having a label on the door indicating it is a smoking establishment. Easy access to information meant I did not go in. But those adults who wish to smoke have a place to go out and have a smoke and a beer. I used to smoke so I understand the point. I do not believe a ban is in order, but a labeling requirement, not too invasive, or perhaps just encouraging business to label a place as non-smoking means people have a choice.
No, I do not work in the food industry but I come from a family of farmers. My business is the professional sports industry, specifically software for that industry. I learned about the labeling through a cousin who works for a major agrichemical company, whose third name is also a book of the Bible. Remember this company has been repeatedly charged with market manipulation, collusion and price fixing. But that does not mean it is all bad. America is where even the poor people are fat and largely because of American agribusiness. Some execs just get a little greedy.
In the case of trans fats, I think they are stalling for time while they convert the supply chain to a suitable alternative -- in this case market forces are accelerating the change without government intervention.
I think after consideration I would be more in favor of revised labeling requirements. We should err on the side of caution before outright bans. Remember what happened in Africa when DDT was banned? Millions have died from malaria.
That does not mean we ought not seek an alternative and use the stuff sparingly. But in the case of outright bans, we should review all evidence thoroughly before being so draconian.

-Tony

Not to throw a kink in this civilized discussion but I disagree the management of large corporations have the interest of the consumer in mind when making decisions. I think their only focus is profit and not getting sued. So what if their foods slowly kill people? So let the consumer's family PROVE a particular corporation's product killed their loved one. A family that has little up against a large fleet of lawyers. Need a picture? Corps simply play the odds, imho.

Remember the "private" attitude of Enron's executives in their "private" memos and phone calls? They were really concerned about the consumer alright. Remember all the doctors RJ Reynolds bought to give false information to the public about their product? What about all the pharmaceutical companies who swear their product is safe only to be found lying to the public?

Now the milk industry is trying to convince people the hormones they give their dairy cows are not harmful. All one need do is look at our children to know this is not true. Kids, girls and boys, with enlarged breasts and spare tires around their waists at age 10 or <. Kids being diagnosed with hormone related illnesses at an early age. Kids dying from diabetes and heart attacks in their teens. All the while the excu's defending their deadly practice.

While the decision makers for corporations may not deliberately try to poison the public, if it means loss of profit, they do little to prevent it. Had China not been caught and the public made aware of the export of millions of toys, for many years, containing lead based paints, they would still be exporting them. Had only the executives been made aware, but not the consumer, do you really think they would have made all those recalls? I think they would have carried on business as usual.

"A family that has little up against a large fleet of lawyers."

Yeah right Yvonne. Take a look at James Sokolove's site, he advertises alot on TV.

http://www.jimsokolove.com/Default.aspx

You can actually browse and pick your lawsuit. The main menu states "Choose a case type". It features 6 main categories: 1) Dangerous Drugs 2) Workplace and Environmental 3) Medical Malpractice 4) Products Liability 5) Finance & Insurance and 6) Other.

When you pick a category there are two tabs: Popular Issues and...get this....A-Z index. Your lawsuit from A-Z.

This guy is one of the Kingpins of trial lawyers, but there are likely tens of thousands out there. With a click of a button a "family" can initiate a lawsuit, many of which are settled by the corporate defendant. The consumer, whether legitimately wronged or not, has power Yvonne.

"Corps simply play the odds, imho."

Corporations are made up of people. All people are fallible. No doubt there are some rotten apples like Ken Lay, but your broad brushed cynical statement is demonstrative of folks like John Edwards Yvonne. That is his primary message in his campaign: "Rich people and corporations are out to screw you poor defenseless little guys and I'm gonna fix it". (Ironic Edwards himself became uber wealthy with this platform but it doesn't seem to sell with voters).

I believe by and large, with some exceptions of course, corporations provide us with goods and services for the betterment of our lives. I am a distributor for two corporations, they strive to provide excellent products and they will jump through hoops to satisfy their customers. One requires me and other distributors to attend annual meetings. The focus is always on product development and service to appeal to customers.

Do they want to make money? Of course, who doesn't? But they realize they won't succeed without satisfied customers.

I always ask the cynics of corporations if they are willing to ditch their cars, cell phones, TVs (and cable) radios, food, drugs, ovens, dishwashers, lawnmowers, light bulbs, and they myriad of other wonderful products provided by corporations. How about you Yvonne?

CALLING OUT
NITPICKER:

Care to "Re-Post" your racist rants again?

How about the one about Obama being a Muslim and how he would be worse than Hitler?????? C'mon smart guy!
Are you impervious to your own ignorance?

Read this and report back with your ignorant statements:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424

Don't expect much from you in the way of admitting your ignorance, but you might want to give it a try sometime---oh, never mind, that would keep you way too busy!