FDA Trans-fat Ban is a Conservation Threat to Forests in Southeast Asia
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:58:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  FDA Trans-fat Ban is a Conservation Threat to Forests in Southeast Asia
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FDA Trans-fat Ban is a Conservation Threat to Forests in Southeast Asia  (Read 473 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 19, 2015, 09:08:46 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://time.com/3927023/trans-fat-ban-deforestation/
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2015, 09:39:46 PM »

Why does it have to be a choice between either using palm oil or keeping trans-fat in food?

Deforestation and the use of palm oil can be addressed on its own.  And, maybe pre-made pie crusts are just going to have a shorter self-life and are going to cost 80 cents more. 

The science is in on trans-fat.  It causes heart disease.  The Harvard School of Public Health says this could prevent 1 in 5 heart attack deaths in America.  That is a no-brainer.  You make the change and then you deal with the follow-on effects in a responsible way.
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2015, 09:49:13 PM »

Both of these are serious problems. We can't fix one at the expense of the other.

I support banning trans fats, but I hope the FDA doesn't just stop there and allow harvesting of palm oils to skyrocket. If this is going to cause a significant increase in deforestation, then IMO we need to ban palm oils too.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2015, 09:52:01 PM »

Both of these are serious problems. We can't fix one at the expense of the other.

I support banning trans fats, but I hope the FDA doesn't just stop there and allow harvesting of palm oils to skyrocket. If this is going to cause a significant increase in deforestation, then IMO we need to ban palm oils too.
How about letting people make their own individual choices??
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2015, 10:03:08 PM »

Both of these are serious problems. We can't fix one at the expense of the other.

I support banning trans fats, but I hope the FDA doesn't just stop there and allow harvesting of palm oils to skyrocket. If this is going to cause a significant increase in deforestation, then IMO we need to ban palm oils too.
How about letting people make their own individual choices??

I generally agree. 

However, this is not banning a type of food.  This is banning a industrial food ingredient.  99% of people do not check the label of food they eat to look at the ingredients and research them.  They assume that a cookie is going to have some sort of fat, but they just assume that it's safe to eat. 

So, it's not necessarily the consumer's choice here.  Rather, the consumers just rely on the FDA and the food companies to make their products safe to eat.  As medicine progresses, we just keep gaining more knowledge about the danger of this ingredient.  It's a question of danger vs. benefit I think.

Would you allow a company to sell lead flavored cookies?  No.  Would you allow them to sell lead paint?  I hope not. You have to draw the line somewhere, it's an oversimplification to just say, "consumer choice!"  Choice only works when the consumers have the information, inclination and ability to make up their mind.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2015, 10:08:00 PM »

Why does it have to be a choice between either using palm oil or keeping trans-fat in food?

Deforestation and the use of palm oil can be addressed on its own.  And, maybe pre-made pie crusts are just going to have a shorter self-life and are going to cost 80 cents more. 

The science is in on trans-fat.  It causes heart disease.  The Harvard School of Public Health says this could prevent 1 in 5 heart attack deaths in America.  That is a no-brainer.  You make the change and then you deal with the follow-on effects in a responsible way.


Yes, ideally we would do without both trans fats and unsustainably sourced palm oil, but policy needs to be done in the real world where we are far from this.  Positing that maybe we'll deal with the disastrous effects of our policies if we get around to it isn't good enough.  If we were to ban trans fats in a reasonable way, it would be done in concert with conservation measures and over a time frame that would allow for a transition to sustainable products. Does the FDA consider at all the ecological impacts of their regulation upon the nation's food supply?
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2015, 10:10:32 PM »

Both of these are serious problems. We can't fix one at the expense of the other.

I support banning trans fats, but I hope the FDA doesn't just stop there and allow harvesting of palm oils to skyrocket. If this is going to cause a significant increase in deforestation, then IMO we need to ban palm oils too.
How about letting people make their own individual choices??

I generally agree. 

However, this is not banning a type of food.  This is banning a industrial food ingredient.  99% of people do not check the label of food they eat to look at the ingredients and research them.  They assume that a cookie is going to have some sort of fat, but they just assume that it's safe to eat. 

So, it's not necessarily the consumer's choice here.  Rather, the consumers just rely on the FDA and the food companies to make their products safe to eat.  As medicine progresses, we just keep gaining more knowledge about the danger of this ingredient.  It's a question of danger vs. benefit I think.

Would you allow a company to sell lead flavored cookies?  No.  Would you allow them to sell lead paint?  I hope not. You have to draw the line somewhere, it's an oversimplification to just say, "consumer choice!"  Choice only works when the consumers have the information, inclination and ability to make up their mind.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2015, 10:19:48 PM »

Why does it have to be a choice between either using palm oil or keeping trans-fat in food?

Deforestation and the use of palm oil can be addressed on its own.  And, maybe pre-made pie crusts are just going to have a shorter self-life and are going to cost 80 cents more. 

The science is in on trans-fat.  It causes heart disease.  The Harvard School of Public Health says this could prevent 1 in 5 heart attack deaths in America.  That is a no-brainer.  You make the change and then you deal with the follow-on effects in a responsible way.


Yes, ideally we would do without both trans fats and unsustainably sourced palm oil, but policy needs to be done in the real world where we are far from this.  Positing that maybe we'll deal with the disastrous effects of our policies if we get around to it isn't good enough.  If we were to ban trans fats in a reasonable way, it would be done in concert with conservation measures and over a time frame that would allow for a transition to sustainable products. Does the FDA consider at all the ecological impacts of their regulation upon the nation's food supply?

Yes.  Every major Federal regulation is subject to cost-benefit analysis. 

Here is the rulemaking:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/17/2015-14883/final-determination-regarding-partially-hydrogenated-oils#h-26
Logged
WVdemocrat
DimpledChad
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 954
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2015, 10:24:17 PM »

Why does it have to be a choice between either using palm oil or keeping trans-fat in food?

Deforestation and the use of palm oil can be addressed on its own.  And, maybe pre-made pie crusts are just going to have a shorter self-life and are going to cost 80 cents more. 

The science is in on trans-fat.  It causes heart disease.  The Harvard School of Public Health says this could prevent 1 in 5 heart attack deaths in America.  That is a no-brainer.  You make the change and then you deal with the follow-on effects in a responsible way.


Yes, ideally we would do without both trans fats and unsustainably sourced palm oil, but policy needs to be done in the real world where we are far from this.  Positing that maybe we'll deal with the disastrous effects of our policies if we get around to it isn't good enough.  If we were to ban trans fats in a reasonable way, it would be done in concert with conservation measures and over a time frame that would allow for a transition to sustainable products. Does the FDA consider at all the ecological impacts of their regulation upon the nation's food supply?

Exactly. We can't fix the problem with trans fats while worsening the problem of deforestation. It doesn't have to be an "either or" thing.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 13 queries.