Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Your tax dollars at work: Now FDA proposes to ban a brand of cookie?

(1/6) > >>

40hz:
Seem that having only limited success in addressing real health issues such as critical drug shortages, the FDA is now moving to ban a brand of cookie (made using a recipe virtually unchanged since 1830) because of the presence of artificial trans fats in  the product.

Apparently a 184-year plus untold millions of units field test isn't sufficient for the FDA when  it's looking for a soft target to claim a meaningless victory over.

Amazing. You can't make this stuff up! And remember folks: This is for YOUR protection.

Article here.

tomos:
I'm confused by the *artifical* label - are "artificial trans fats" & "trans fats" the same thing? [edit] they appear to be the same [/edit]

In europe you see relatively few products with trans fats in comparision to a few years back (usually labelled "partially hydrogenated oils" these days **). I personally dislike the taste of trans fats - if you taste a margarine with a high percentage of trans fats and one that has none, you'd probably agree with me. (Only eat butter myself.) I can often even taste if they are used in baked products. But it's because of the bad press healthwise, that it is now used much less here. I dont think it's regulated in the EU in general, but I'm not sure.

Do you know: is it used a lot in the States?

** I'm not 100% sure there - wikipedia says:
Hydrogenated oil is not a synonym for trans fat: complete hydrogenation removes all unsaturated, both cis and trans, fats.
--- End quote ---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

x16wda:
I think it's all evil and should be done away with.  And don't water down the regulations with something flimsy like the warning labels they put on tobacco products.  I'm tired of reading all the news stories about people getting horribly sick from exposure to second-hand cookies.

rgdot:
I understand why someone would not want laws like that, by government or anybody. I am not saying I am for it, no one can accuse me of being a commie when it comes to regulating chocolate/sweets. I am personally bank rolling PepsiCo for decades now  :P

But when an article claims.

the FDA claims a ban may prevent between 3,000 and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year. But evidence for this proposition is equivocal at best.
--- End quote ---

I move along. Anybody (me, you, even the FDA itself) who wants to put a doubt on that is being silly. I am not a MD but believe that's not in doubt, might be 'only' 1000 or 1 million but not it's not in doubt.

40hz:
Why the United States government is so gung-ho on saving and extending the span of human life - while simultaneously allowing those that do live longer to wallow in the pain and misery brought on by inadequate medical care, social isolation, hunger and poverty once they do reach old age - will always be a mystery to me.

I guess it's because one's absolute age (in years) is easier to reduce to a statistic than the quality of one's life is. That's the sort of number that plays more easily into political posturing and media sound bytes. So I guess that's why the FDA prefers to focus more on "saving" lives rather than improving the quality of those it (theoretically) might save...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page