Nyc to ban trans fats

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

I'm not against the banning of trans fat. I'm against the way this is being done by a level of government that has no business to do so. In the same wasy I'd kick up a fuss if the federal government tried to charge me property taxes.

perhaps i've missed something along the way, but i don't understand why state/local government has no business doing this. the tenth amendment states that the federal government has only the powers that the constitution grants it, right? and that the states have powers outside of it (that aren't forbidden), yes? where in the us constitution is this forbidden, or where in the new york state constitution is this forbidden?

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

What is it with people telling me what the logic behind my statements are. Are you fucking psychic? No I did not imply, by my statement, that children should be allowed to buy cigerettesd and I would appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth in order to win an arguement. We disagree on this and you will not sway my mind so fucking get over yourself already and quit telling me what the logic behind my statement is when in reality you have not one fucking clue what that logic is.

whoa, touched a nerve. you are the one who compared it to cigarettes... saying "cigarettes are unhealthy but legal so why are we banning this?" i did not put words in your mouth, i simply took your comparison to its logical end. you cant slice it both ways.

my point was, this is not being banned per se, it is being regulated, just like cigarettes, alcohol, or any other dangerous substance. becos that's what this stuff is. it's not a naturally existing food source. it's a genetically engineered fat that quite simply kills people. and it should be restricted as other health hazards are. we dont give cigarettes to children becos they are fatal and addictive. ditto with alcohol... young bodies cannot handle it. likewise, children cannot handle this stuff. they get ti and crave more cos it tastes good but it starts clogging their arteries before the damn things are even developed. and most people out there dont know about it. so restrict the stuff. keep it out of public areas. it's unecessary. if you feel you NEED to have transfat, you can buy it and put it in your food at home, just like smokers buy and smoke at home.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

Because your politics are interesting and they actually have a big impact on Canada. From do some studying in the states where I took a couple US history courses I have come to admire the American style of checks and balances, authority limits that are in the various levels of government. As an outsider who thinks you have a good system, it amazes me when people applaud the cirumventing of these rules when it meets their narrow focused objectives.

Did I pass your test?

no, becos you dodged my other 2 questions. didja just realized you had nothing to stand on and hoped id forget?

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

whoa, touched a nerve. you are the one who compared it to cigarettes... saying "cigarettes are unhealthy but legal so why are we banning this?" i did not put words in your mouth, i simply took your comparison to its logical end. you cant slice it both ways.

Yes you did touch a nerve. And yes I can slice it both ways. Trans fats in a limited amount will not kill you. Trans fats do not have the attactive nature that nicotene has. You can eat a greasy fucking cheeseburger and not affect the health of the person next to you. Finally the only places that cigerettes are prohibited are in enclosed environments, buildings, schools, bars,restuarants, etc. I can still go sit in the park on a bench and puff away affect those people that are near me. The restriction put on smoking are for the benefit of the non-smoker. The smoker still has the choice to kill himself if he/she wishes. You can go out and eat a McDonald's cheeseburger and not have a heart attack on the spot. It is when people don't take care of themselves and eat foods high in trans fats on a daily basis that the health problems arise. As far as children are concerned it is up to their parents to teach them about good nutruition and prevent them from eat shit like McDonalds or Burger King everyday. My kids haven't had any of that crap in a long time because their mother and I don't allow it. We teach our kids about eating healthy foods so when they are old enough to go out with their friends they will make the right decision. We talk about taking responsibility for our actions but then expect the government to take that responsibility away from us. We need to start taking ownership of our lives and that means dealing with the consiquencesof our actions wether theyare positive or negative and stop depending on the government to do everything for us. Look at diet sodas, they contain D-Phenylalamine which is a sythetic form of L-Phenylalamine. Studies have shown that D-Phenylalamine, in high doses, can have some serious affects on the body. Yet we don't ban diet soda from being served in restuarants. Trans fats are unhealthy like most saturated fats but it should be up to us as consumers to decide wether we want to put that into our bodies. It's not like we are eating cynide or arsenic. Instead of focusing on trans fats as the cause of the high rates in obesity and CVD we should look at this country's eating habits. Do you really think that every obese person in NYC will all of a sudden lose weight or that their LDL-cholesterol will suddenly fall to within NCEP proposed levels. No these people will contunie, for the most part, to be obese and continue down the path to a MI because of the way they eat. Banning trans fats to me equals the building of a 700 mile long wall along a 2,000+ mile border to stop illegal immigration. It is a quick and easy responce that will do nothing to fix the problem. Now go ahead tell me what my logic is again since you seem to know.

Androgynous Mind

It is great that someone is finally taking a stand against this stuff. Studies show trans fats are horrible for your health. With 2/3 of Americans considered overweight and 31% of them censidered obese, this is a good move. Although this will not solve obesity (all fats, good and bad in excess pack the pounds on) it is definately a step in the right direction.

Pacomc79

http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/UER/uer98/author2/content.html


here's a short paper on aspartame and Phenalanine from a student at the University of Wisconsin. Mamasan generally brings up a lot of interesting topics I know this is out of place, I just thought others reading this thread might be interested... cheers.

mammasan

Pacomc79 wrote:

http://tc.engr.wisc.edu/UER/uer98/author2/content.html


here's a short paper on aspartame and Phenalanine from a student at the University of Wisconsin. Mamasan generally brings up a lot of interesting topics I know this is out of place, I just thought others reading this thread might be interested... cheers.

Aspartame has been shown to be safe for human consumption, with the exception of the specific people with the metobolic disorder mentioned in the paper. The phenylalamine that is realed by aspartame after it breaks down is L-phenylalamine which is an amino acid produced by the human body so it is safe. What is not entirely safe is the synthetic phenylalamine, D-phenylalamine, which is used in phenylketonurics which is an artificial sweeter used in Diet Pepsi. Phenylketonurics actually contains a combination of both types of phenylalamine known as DL-Phenylalamine. It is the synthetic portion of this amino acid that early tests have shown to have some side effects on the human body in high doses. So someone who drinks a lot of diet sodas can in fact be causing harm to themselves. Some as someone who eats food high in trans fats will be doing the same. Both the trans fats and D or DL-Phenylalamine are harmless is moderate amounts it is when we over-indulge ourselves that they become dangerous.

tooferz

i love this freakin country. regulate everything so its 'good for you'. who does trans fat hurt except the people eating it? and where does this end? how many other foods harm us? are people gonna unite and ban sodas and candy cuz they have no nutritional value and are bad for your teeth? (oh wait, they already have from schools). and red meat...fritos...chips...etc etc. so why isnt alcohol banned? it by far has more ramifications if over-used than food.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

Yes you did touch a nerve. And yes I can slice it both ways. Trans fats in a limited amount will not kill you. Trans fats do not have the attactive nature that nicotene has. You can eat a greasy fucking cheeseburger and not affect the health of the person next to you. Finally the only places that cigerettes are prohibited are in enclosed environments, buildings, schools, bars,restuarants, etc. I can still go sit in the park on a bench and puff away affect those people that are near me. The restriction put on smoking are for the benefit of the non-smoker. The smoker still has the choice to kill himself if he/she wishes. You can go out and eat a McDonald's cheeseburger and not have a heart attack on the spot. It is when people don't take care of themselves and eat foods high in trans fats on a daily basis that the health problems arise. As far as children are concerned it is up to their parents to teach them about good nutruition and prevent them from eat shit like McDonalds or Burger King everyday. My kids haven't had any of that crap in a long time because their mother and I don't allow it. We teach our kids about eating healthy foods so when they are old enough to go out with their friends they will make the right decision. We talk about taking responsibility for our actions but then expect the government to take that responsibility away from us. We need to start taking ownership of our lives and that means dealing with the consiquencesof our actions wether theyare positive or negative and stop depending on the government to do everything for us. Look at diet sodas, they contain D-Phenylalamine which is a sythetic form of L-Phenylalamine. Studies have shown that D-Phenylalamine, in high doses, can have some serious affects on the body. Yet we don't ban diet soda from being served in restuarants. Trans fats are unhealthy like most saturated fats but it should be up to us as consumers to decide wether we want to put that into our bodies. It's not like we are eating cynide or arsenic. Instead of focusing on trans fats as the cause of the high rates in obesity and CVD we should look at this country's eating habits. Do you really think that every obese person in NYC will all of a sudden lose weight or that their LDL-cholesterol will suddenly fall to within NCEP proposed levels. No these people will contunie, for the most part, to be obese and continue down the path to a MI because of the way they eat. Banning trans fats to me equals the building of a 700 mile long wall along a 2,000+ mile border to stop illegal immigration. It is a quick and easy responce that will do nothing to fix the problem. Now go ahead tell me what my logic is again since you seem to know.

and in a simple comparison, you can go out and smoke a cigarette and it will not kill you dead instantly. but if you smoke them every day, they will. so it should be up to consumers then right? yet we dont allow children to buy them... why? im honestly curious, if you feel it should be up to parents to watch what their kids eat, why do we bother with restrictions on smoking for them? shouldn't it be up to parents to make sure their kids are being healthy and not smoking? what is the difference here? this stuff isn't cyanide, but it's close enough. it is poison for the body.

no, it wont stop obesity overnight. but it's a step in the right direction. you talk about looking at eating habits, yes, that needs to happen too. but maybe this is the first step on that road. cutting out a substance that does no good, is unecessary, and totally hazardous and harmful for human consumption. it is just like asbestos... there is no good reason to ahve it, no compelling need for people to use it, and no one will miss it. there are alternatives that are just as effective. so why not say "stop using this shit and use something else" which is exactly what we told asbestos users. that didnt destroy or system of free commerce, nor did it strip people of all their rights and choices. it simply held companies responsible for using dangerous substances in the products they sold. there is nothing new in this.

let's forget smoking... do you think contractors should be able to build with asbestos?

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

good answer dude. i'm really impressed. not to change the subject; but when i was in school; we were taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances in that citizens are allowed to bear arms in the event all other checks and balances fail and we get a dictator in office. was this ever mentioned? they don't teach it like that anymore.

I know we have very different opinions about guns, gun laws. but this, I agree with you.

onelongsong

tooferz wrote:

i love this freakin country. regulate everything so its 'good for you'. who does trans fat hurt except the people eating it? and where does this end? how many other foods harm us? are people gonna unite and ban sodas and candy cuz they have no nutritional value and are bad for your teeth? (oh wait, they already have from schools). and red meat...fritos...chips...etc etc. so why isnt alcohol banned? it by far has more ramifications if over-used than food.

from what i understand; the ban is for those who don't know it's bad for them. and also the office worker who eats lunch out every day. i remember when phen phen was killing people. everyone screamed WHERE'S THE GOVERNMENT AND WHY AREN'T THEY PROTECTING US. well; i guess they stepped in a little early; not enough people have died.

El_Kabong

mammasan wrote:

Aspartame has been shown to be safe for human consumption, with the exception of the specific people with the metobolic disorder mentioned in the paper. The phenylalamine that is realed by aspartame after it breaks down is L-phenylalamine which is an amino acid produced by the human body so it is safe. What is not entirely safe is the synthetic phenylalamine, D-phenylalamine, which is used in phenylketonurics which is an artificial sweeter used in Diet Pepsi. Phenylketonurics actually contains a combination of both types of phenylalamine known as DL-Phenylalamine. It is the synthetic portion of this amino acid that early tests have shown to have some side effects on the human body in high doses. So someone who drinks a lot of diet sodas can in fact be causing harm to themselves. Some as someone who eats food high in trans fats will be doing the same. Both the trans fats and D or DL-Phenylalamine are harmless is moderate amounts it is when we over-indulge ourselves that they become dangerous.

didn't 1 person die and 1 person have their lungs collapse when they entered the aspertame plant w/o a body suit?? i don't think i'd want to drink something that would make me die from breathing it, even if it is in low doses...didn't they do tests on 7 monkeys w/ aspartame and out of those 7 1 died and 5 started having grand mal <severe> seizures? it didn't get passed b/c it was dafe, it got passed b/c powerful ppl w/ connections pushed it <see 3rd youtube link>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-gA0wvi84

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcbsjtMvMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi3zCdjt5js

all short

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Aspartame+Sweet+Misery+A+Poisoned&spell=1

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

Aspartame has been shown to be safe for human consumption, with the exception of the specific people with the metobolic disorder mentioned in the paper. The phenylalamine that is realed by aspartame after it breaks down is L-phenylalamine which is an amino acid produced by the human body so it is safe. What is not entirely safe is the synthetic phenylalamine, D-phenylalamine, which is used in phenylketonurics which is an artificial sweeter used in Diet Pepsi. Phenylketonurics actually contains a combination of both types of phenylalamine known as DL-Phenylalamine. It is the synthetic portion of this amino acid that early tests have shown to have some side effects on the human body in high doses. So someone who drinks a lot of diet sodas can in fact be causing harm to themselves. Some as someone who eats food high in trans fats will be doing the same. Both the trans fats and D or DL-Phenylalamine are harmless is moderate amounts it is when we over-indulge ourselves that they become dangerous.

Someone well educated, such as yourself, thinking Aspartame is ever safe is the exact reason why this shit should be illegal. Let me ask you this: After watching those documentaries, would you allow just one piece of articially sweetened candy containing aspartame into your children's mouths?

onelongsong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Someone well educated, such as yourself, thinking Aspartame is ever safe is the exact reason why this shit should be illegal. Let me ask you this: After watching those documentaries, would you allow just one piece of articially sweetened candy containing aspartame into your children's mouths?

i agree with you; book; but there is so much more people need to know about their food and what they're really eating. i'm just tired of talking waiting for someone to hear.
peace

mammasan

soulsinging wrote:

let's forget smoking... do you think contractors should be able to build with asbestos?

No I don't think they should be allowed to build with asbestos and I'll tell you why. With asbestos you have no control of wether you choose to breath it in or not. You can make the choice yourself when it comes to your own home, but not when it comes to your work place or business you may frequent to eat or shop in. Your employer, if he leases space out of an office building may have no idea that the space they are leasing was build with materials containing asbestos. You are unwillingly subjected to the dangers that it causes. With trans fats you have control wether you want to ingest it or not by simply choosing foods that do not contain it or where not prepared or cooked in oils containing trans fats. An example I worked in a building that had fire protecting coating on the steel frame that contained asbestos. My employer wanted to renovate the space and after construction started the asbestos was discovered. Unknow to my employer and all the employees that it even existed. With trans fats you know it's there. You know that most fried foods or greasy foods run a high risk of containing trans fats or prepeared/cooked in oils containing trans fats. You have the opportunity to make the choice wether you want to eat it or not. Same as with many other unnatural additives and preservatives that are added to most of our foods. You know they are there, same may not be good for you, but you ultimately make the decesion as to wether you want those additives and preservatives in your body or not. I understand where you are coming from and trust me I know we are better off without trans fats in our diet. I have worked closely with the pharmaceutical industry mostly on cardiovascular related drugsand know what these fatty acids can do to you. I just don't agree with NYC's decision. I am for a lesser role of government in our lives even if the role or action being taken by governemnt is a good one, we are opening the door for them to take furthersteps and the next action taken may not have the same positive effect.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Someone well educated, such as yourself, thinking Aspartame is ever safe is the exact reason why this shit should be illegal. Let me ask you this: After watching those documentaries, would you allow just one piece of articially sweetened candy containing aspartame into your children's mouths?

I don't let my kids eat candy to begin with, except on Halloween. When my kids want a snack they get organic fruits or vegetables. If you where to ask my 4 year old if he would want strawberries or a piece of candy and he will tell you he wants the strawberries. Their mother and I have taught them since they where small that fruits and vegetables are much better for them than candy .Also contrary to the documentaries moderate amounts of aspartame have been shown to have no side affects. I'm more concerned with D-phenylalamine.

Abookamongstthemany

mammasan wrote:

I don't let my kids eat candy to begin with, except on Halloween. When my kids want a snack they get organic fruits or vegetables. If you where to ask my 4 year old if he would want strawberries or a piece of candy and he will tell you he wants the strawberries. Their mother and I have taught them since they where small that fruits and vegetables are much better for them than candy .Also contrary to the documentaries moderate amounts of aspartame have been shown to have no side affects. I'm more concerned with D-phenylalamine.

It wasn't the point if they eat candy over fruit or whatever. The point was after watching those clips do you think it is safe enough to put into your childrens mouths?

What about the tests on the monkeys kabong referenced in his post? It obvioulsy wasn't safe for them.

mammasan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It wasn't the point if they eat candy over fruit or whatever. The point was after watching those clips do you think it is safe enough to put into your childrens mouths?

What about the tests on the monkeys kabong referenced in his post? It obvioulsy wasn't safe for them.

The problem with the animal tests is that once the body starts to break down the aspartame one of the components it releases is L-phenylalamine which is a naturally produced amino acid in humans. Animals do not have the ability to produce L-Phenylalamine and therefore their metobalic system is unable to break it down causing a build up in their system which can lead to serious health problems.

soulsinging

mammasan wrote:

No I don't think they should be allowed to build with asbestos and I'll tell you why. With asbestos you have no control of wether you choose to breath it in or not. You can make the choice yourself when it comes to your own home, but not when it comes to your work place or business you may frequent to eat or shop in. Your employer, if he leases space out of an office building may have no idea that the space they are leasing was build with materials containing asbestos. You are unwillingly subjected to the dangers that it causes. With trans fats you have control wether you want to ingest it or not by simply choosing foods that do not contain it or where not prepared or cooked in oils containing trans fats. An example I worked in a building that had fire protecting coating on the steel frame that contained asbestos. My employer wanted to renovate the space and after construction started the asbestos was discovered. Unknow to my employer and all the employees that it even existed. With trans fats you know it's there. You know that most fried foods or greasy foods run a high risk of containing trans fats or prepeared/cooked in oils containing trans fats. You have the opportunity to make the choice wether you want to eat it or not. Same as with many other unnatural additives and preservatives that are added to most of our foods. You know they are there, same may not be good for you, but you ultimately make the decesion as to wether you want those additives and preservatives in your body or not. I understand where you are coming from and trust me I know we are better off without trans fats in our diet. I have worked closely with the pharmaceutical industry mostly on cardiovascular related drugsand know what these fatty acids can do to you. I just don't agree with NYC's decision. I am for a lesser role of government in our lives even if the role or action being taken by governemnt is a good one, we are opening the door for them to take furthersteps and the next action taken may not have the same positive effect.

but you COULD know asbestos is present. any building with insulation might have asbestos. or you could just post warnings: "this building contains asbestos." this is what you're advocating for food service. then people have the choice of whether or not they want to live there, or work there, or do business there. or they can go elsewhere. or wear a mask. how is asking that any different?

this is not some huge war on taking away freedom and choice. this is a government safety measure to keep a dangerous substance that has absolutely NO positive value (if you can make an argument that some people NEED transfat for their food it might be different) out of american food supplies. i see it as no different from a number of other government safety initiatives... OSHA, the EPA, CERCLA, controlled substances, prescription drugs, or whatever else. it's not saying you can't have fat, or you must eat X veggies per day, or your diet has to be like this. it's simply saying businesses that serve the public must meet certain health and safety standards. we do this daily in ever area... from mandating sound facilities and standards of service to ensuring products are designed safely and effectively. this is not a huge and novel imposition on freedom of choice. it is simply another government regulation in an area which we have, historically, had no qualms allowing the government to regulate.

miller8966

mammasan wrote:

The problem with the animal tests is that once the body starts to break down the aspartame one of the components it releases is L-phenylalamine which is a naturally produced amino acid in humans. Animals do not have the ability to produce L-Phenylalamine and therefore their metobalic system is unable to break it down causing a build up in their system which can lead to serious health problems.

Ever hear of the alkaline diet?