Location: Home > food > Washington State to consider trans-fat ban
21. Becki,
First, thank you for being more polite to me this time; I genuinely appreciate that.
Second, I care about the health of our population because I'm a citizen of this country, and I think that commits me to more than just a begrudging sharing of land resources. We all have a vested interest in the health of the population, if for no other reason that an extremely sick population is not productive, and will monopolize increasingly scarce medical resources (which would be the case regardless of if we have a govn't run or totally privatized medical system).
I'm sure that we have a very deep disagreement about some of the fundamentals of political and social philosophy--that is, how far is the hand of govn't justified in reaching? I actually used to agree wholeheartedly with you. About 10 years ago, I was a card-carrying Libertarian; "Anarchy, State and Utopia" was my bible (a book you should read... hm, or maybe not, since I disagree with you now.). But I'm now convinced that an unfettered free market is almost always a menace to the general population. It can be very effective in specific instances, or in the short run, but in the long run it usually tilts towards the money. Eventually, almost any situation will pass a watershed point wherein the market no longer has the resources to reign-in one side--nor does it have any interest in doing so. That side can now effectively run roughshod over the public--as we see the food industry doing. They will make small concessions to try and keep us happy, but it's never more than a "let them eat cake" strategy. Just keep us happy enough to keep coming back... and spend a ton to convince us that we should. Of course, you are welcome to disagree. Isn't open debate wonderful? Posted at 3:33PM on Dec 14th 2006 by Robyn M.22. Guess what?!? I have this *wacky* belief that products, when used as directed by consumers, shouldn't demonstrably shorten their lives. Leaded gas, Rely tampons (P&Gs toxic shock syndrome-inducing blunder), Vioxx. . . all of these things, when used as intended by the manufacturers, contributed to death and disease. Why are trans and tobacco exempt?
Trans fats get away with it through history of use, and some very powerful soybean interests, just like the decline of the palm oil market was decried by british and dutch interests in the last part of the 20th century. The difference is, Cargill, ADM and other midwest agricultural influences are incredibly politically connected. Just like tobacco farmers and tobacco companies.
I'm not a big conspiracy theorist...I'm just aware that it's not always about quality and safety with these guys, especially when the risk can be spread over many decades and many producers.
Trans is not a tasty food product; it's an adulterant, like rat shit, e coli or metal filings, and should be regulated as such. If you want to introduce new food ingredients today, you have to test them to get Generally Recognized As Safe status - why shouldn't trans fats have to do the same thing?
As for the ingredient list...
SOYBEAN OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).
When fats are fully hydrogenated, they can meet a legal, if not technical definition of trans fat free. Traces remain, and the process is controllable to whatever end you like - it's more like setting a dimmer switch for how much trans- you can end up with, not "none" or "all". Fully-hydrogenated palm or cottonseed oil is...pretty gross stuff (think candles, not pastry), and you probably wouldn't choose to use it based on the taste or texture.
Could one of the opponents of the ban respond with what makes these so essential for our food security, or quality or safety? That's the point that I'm unable to grasp, and I think I come at this more informed than most consumers. (I haven't had a bite of margarine in 15 years, and I can tell you the metabolic differences between ruminant-manufactured trans- fats and synthetics).
Eric Posted at 4:28PM on Dec 14th 2006 by Eric23. "I'm not a big conspiracy theorist..."
Me thinks Eric doth prosest too much. This he says after explaining the conspiracy that ADM has over protecting their soybean interests... I wonder, are the drug companies in on this conspiracy too? (Hmm, create market for heart disease drugs??) or do they have their own.
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get me!" Posted at 5:02PM on Dec 14th 2006 by Stephanie24. "This he says after explaining the conspiracy that ADM has over protecting their soybean interests... "
Well, in fairness, ADM has been busted in the past for conspiring to price-fix in an international soybean pricing scheme. Not quite the same thing as what Eric is talking about, but ADM's certainly got the behavioral history...
Oh cr*p, they ARE out to get us! =)
BTW, Eric, what sort of Crisco were you looking at? Mine is all partially-hydrogenated. Do you have the "no TFs" version? Posted at 10:12PM on Dec 14th 2006 by Robyn M.25. Hi everyone,
I apologize for my last comment (#23). I wrote it, then thought better of posting it. Somehow it got on there anyway-- probably my mistake, but I am certain I did not click on the "click here to confirm" button. Oh well, sorry. Posted at 12:31PM on Dec 15th 2006 by Stephanie26. trans fats = poison, people,like robyn m. said.
Posted at 6:53PM on Jan 3rd 2007 by meganPrevious 20 Comments
|
