Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Canadian Guy)   From the nation that wants to decriminalize marijuana: "Let's outlaw trans fat."   ( divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9786 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2004 at 11:37 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

185 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-11-20 02:34:25 AM  

I have no problem with this law really. They're not banning snack foods; they're forcing manufacturers not to use a dangerous product in said foods. Only a braindead corporate apologist would argue against that (and there are a lot of those on Fark, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it).

Yeah, that's pretty much it... to repeat, they're not talking about banning fatty foods, they're talking about banning a dangerous substance in them. Would these people complain about a ban on putting anthrax in food? Probably, and then they'd say something retarded about a nanny state.
2004-11-20 02:34:26 AM  
I kinda like the idea.

I'm at the age where I have to watch my cholesterol and fat intake and so many products are marked 0 cholesterol but are full of trans fat, which turns into the stuff when consumed.

Any margarine or shortening that stays solid at room temperature is stuffed with trans fat. So, you who gulp down Chef's Spread and similar margarine's or eat those little packets of unrefridgerated margarine found in fast food places might as well chow down on a stick of lard.

Since we no longer work physically hard from dawn to dusk, we don't burn off the cholesterol, which is used as energy. That's why, in the old days, farmers could eat massive breakfasts of rashers of fatty bacon, piles of eggs, lard based biscuits, thickening gravy, thick slabs of home made bread and piles of cheese and get away with it. They probably burned up 3000 calories a day, with it, the cholesterol.

Our truth in advertising laws are full of loopholes that still allow manufacturers of food to be deceptive about the contents. Like that ham you buy from Walmart looks delicious, but it's been shot so full of salty water and deliberately has a lot of fat on it that you'll loose about two pounds in cooking and trimming. The same with various brands of hamburger. A little fat is needed in the grind to hold the meat together, but some store brands, when you cook it, loose nearly 25% of their weight by turning into grease.

The filling in Oreo cookies is made mainly of vegetable fats that are trans-fat or the filling couldn't stay solid. A lot of Taco places that sell refried beans shovel in lard to stretch the product and make a greater profit.

I'm still suspicious of those pastries like Ding Dongs and Fruit Pies in convenience stores that seem to have a shelf life of like 100 years.

We discovered that converting slaughterhouse scraps into feed additives for cattle and fowl was not a good idea and pretty well stopped it. We're discovering that pumping animals full of antibiotics has started making various human diseases immune to them. So has the previous practice of handing out penicillin and any cillin drug for colds, acne and whatever created a problem where diseases have developed a resistance to them. We stopped DDT, a great insecticide, when we discovered that it poisoned nearly everything and caused genetic damage. (However, we still happily make it and ship it to places like South America, where it is still legal and cheap. Then we buy vegetables back from them.)

Everyone is up in arms over tobacco, but trans-fat is just as sneaky as the tobacco companies were and in far more products. You don't want your kids smoking, but they can shovel down Chef's Spread, most margarine's, butter, various store pastries, chips, dip, sausages, assorted candy bars and cookies loaded with trans-fats. Then you wonder why they get fat and, later, start having arterial diseases.

Pork rinds claim to have no cholesterol, but they're deep fried PIG SKIN! Dump a couple of hundred pounds of quivering pig skin into caldrons of boiling vegetable oil and by simple infusion, lard is going to ooze out and contaminate the batch.

We need to be harder on trans fat and truth in advertising laws.
2004-11-20 02:35:52 AM  
Well at least we do not outlaw boobies like your FCC.

1 - Outlaw trans fat
2 - Outlaw fat asses
3 - Give special exception to Americans so they can still come to visit us
2004-11-20 02:42:19 AM  
Excuse me? Marijuana is beneficial, never mind harmful? It's like smoking, except it's infinitely more socially acceptable. I'll exclude the obvious impairments, the loss of short-term memory and so forth.

Give me a nation of people who eat Oreos but exercise over a nation of weed addicts. It's terrible uncool to say so, but face up to the facts.
2004-11-20 02:53:37 AM  
When you make the government responsible for your health you implicitly give them the right to decided how you live. This law doesn't ban fatty foods outright... that law IS a few years away. Ever since the tobacco lawsuits lawyers have been talking about this, In america, canada and especially europe. Laws against fatty food will NOT pass this year or next year. I would bet money on it happening 10 years from now and snowballing from there.

Apart from the sticky issues of freedom and freewill you also have to worry about who's making these decisions? As has already been pointed out 30 years ago nutritionists were saying transfats were the way to go, now they're saying the exact opposite. every month these people put out a new study that contradicts earlier findings... then years later they reverse themselves.

today you have the right to decide not to listen to them but years from now governments may be passing laws based on what these people say and if you break the rules you lose your healthcare. Is this freedom?

And now the new thing in health care savings is some companies will not hire smokers as a measure to save money. while I'm sure most of you who just read this are agreeing with that idea. wait until these companies figure they can even more money by not hiring fat people, and can save BIG money by not hiring anyone who's had a mental illness, know anyone who's ever been diagnosed with depression? They will soon be too big a risk to employ.
2004-11-20 02:55:16 AM  
Think of the children.
No war for vegetable oil.
2004-11-20 02:56:32 AM  
Marijuana is not physically addictive and its dependency rates are well below cigarettes and alcohol. The chemicals it produces in the brain occur there naturally anyway.

Heart disease is our number one killer. Trans fat as well as the other fatty ingredients packed into our food is causing that (as well as overeating). Americans are overfed and undernourished. It would be a public service to outlaw it. Prices would go up, weights would go down.

There is no comparison. Weed: illegal due to misunderstanding and fear. Fat: Our number one public enemy.
2004-11-20 02:58:16 AM  
Why is this asinine? The stuff is deadly, this is the best idea I've heard all week.
2004-11-20 02:59:58 AM  
Everyone in Canada should be able to possess up to 15 grams of Oreos without criminal sanction.
2004-11-20 03:03:24 AM  
Oh my God. The Queen takes money from Canada? I had no idea.

Fark the FCC. It's starting to get ridiculous here.

Hey, everybody! I'm a figure painter and I still paint nudes. You censorship tards can go fark yourselves.

2004-11-20 03:04:30 AM  

today you have the right to decide not to listen to them but years from now governments may be passing laws based on what these people say and if you break the rules you lose your healthcare. Is this freedom?

Canadians don't "lose" healthcare. Were you trying to make a point?
2004-11-20 03:27:19 AM  
sens "What do we put more importance on? The shelf life of humans, or the shelf life of donuts?"

You had me right up until you tried to have me have to turn my back on the donuts. The sweet, sweet, Tim Horton's donuts.

Never do that again.

/now get off your ass and get down to the Spirit of Edmonton at the Crowne Plaza. It's Grey Cup and you're the host city, so get to the drinking you lightweight.
2004-11-20 03:40:08 AM  
The NDP isn't really about gaining power or making legislation, its purpose is mostly as sort of a social conscience to whatever pragmatic party is currently running to gov't. There's actually quite a history of the NDP publicising good ideas leading to the ruling party adopting them and legislating them.
2004-11-20 03:44:06 AM  
This totally seems like a reasonable and probably good idea to me.

I'm just surprised so many people on Fark would agree with me on that. I thought it would just be lots of "morans" and maybe a "PETA sucks" thrown in there for unclear reasons.
2004-11-20 03:44:23 AM  
[image from too old to be available]

Think the NDP would have fared better if voters weren't intimidated by Jack Layton's porn star mustache? Bow-chicka-bow-bow...

"neon orange and lime green are simply not colours of power"

2004-11-20 03:45:03 AM  
Sounds brilliant to me, should be under the Spiffy lable. Why should we let McDonalds add hydrogen to oil to increase the shelf life when it's clearly harmful to the people that consume it? Just what the goverment should be doing.
2004-11-20 03:47:30 AM  
One is bad for you, the other isn't.. make sense to me. Trans fats have already been banned in some countries in europe.
2004-11-20 03:52:03 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

What's up with the asinine tag?

[Even better if I'm paying for your healthcare after you eat this crap...]
2004-11-20 03:52:23 AM  
Americans, you got to remember one thing here:


You know what that means? ...Everyone gets treated. Everyone. Even if they don't want to be treated, the government will still come to their home, knock them out cold, and drag them to the nearest hospital to treat them.

Now, as you can imagine, the more people get sick or injured, the more it costs the government money to treat them. So what should the government do to decrease the cost of healthcare? Why, remove the conditions by which people get sick. Or at least reduce them a whole lot. This is the reasoning behind things like banning smoking in public places and trans-fats and other mean things.

You talk about letting the people eat what they want, smoke how they want, live how they want, risks be dammed?, sorry--not while the government's paying for it because you were a reckless idiot with your life.
--I totally agree! At least the canadian government is looking out for their people...rather than screwing them in their arses. What I would give for health insurance.
2004-11-20 04:07:13 AM  
The reason this should be banned, but not alcohol, is that it has no societal benefit. Sure, alcohol might cause more problems than it solves, but banning it is even worse. Overall people are happier with alcohol being legal. Same for marijuana.
What are the benefits of trans-fats?
2004-11-20 04:09:17 AM  

Fine, have your choice but as things are now how do you know what you are eating? Even chewing gum and breath minths contain trans fats. It is everywhere.
2004-11-20 04:44:14 AM  
As the submitter, and a Canadian, let me just say this:

I'm all for the decriminilization of Marijuana. And I'm all for the generally healthier side of snacks and foods (hell, I don't eat too many cookies or chips anyway). However, I think it's absolutely ridiculous for them to outright BAN trans fats.

If the gov't is going to continue to allow (and profit from) alcohol and tobacco, I don't see why they should suddenly be banning trans fat. If people want to eat crappy food because it tastes better, then let them. Canada is still a free country, let people eat what they like and stop trying to restrict their preferences.

And to those saying that the NDP has no power, all the news sources are saying that Ottawa is pretty much universally backing this bannination.
2004-11-20 04:53:35 AM  
NEWMAN'S OWN ORGANICS-Newman-O's have no trans-fats and taste a hell of a lot better than Oreos.
2004-11-20 04:58:19 AM  
Good.. I want my Doritos to be healthy for me.. I eat a lot of them due to the muchies

/ripping his BC Vaporizer right now
2004-11-20 05:39:18 AM  
[image from too old to be available]
2004-11-20 05:48:21 AM  
The NDP are money scwandering asshats, never should you vote for them!
2004-11-20 05:54:43 AM  
Here here!
2004-11-20 06:09:15 AM  
So, wantedbadass, what do you think of the idea of adding antifreeze to wine to make it taste like it's aged more than it is? After all, Quand je sens que ma foi dans les forces suprèmes faiblit, je pense toujours au miracle de l'anti-freeze."
2004-11-20 06:17:41 AM  
Please do me a favor:

Everyone that's crying about "trans fat", please describe to me, using pictures or words, the difference between fats in the trans conformation and cis conformation.

/Can't count the number of times he's heard someone biatching about "trans fat" while having no idea exactly what "trans" really means or even why it's bad for the body.
2004-11-20 06:36:05 AM  
Then, explain exactly which chemicals occur in tobacco when it is burned, and why they are harmful.
2004-11-20 07:03:33 AM  
FDA's faq on trans fats.
2004-11-20 07:41:05 AM  
Since everything is bad for you, I eat and smoke whatever the hell I want.

Seems to work.
2004-11-20 07:44:48 AM  
Soon it will be illegal to die. And then where will we be?
2004-11-20 07:51:06 AM  
FROM NOV. 1, 2004: McDonald's slammed for trans fats

What is this fascination with McDonalds? Did they forget almost all other restaurants use the same type of oil? It's like this bizarre obsession with the consumer Humvee.
2004-11-20 07:57:19 AM  
b) can anybody rationally explain how they would miss transfats? like, does that extra 'trans' make it extra good?

It makes vegetable oil solid at room temperature. That's how's how you can have margarine in sticks and not in a bottle. I remember it used to be promoted a healthy alternative to animal fat.
2004-11-20 08:35:45 AM  
Most of you don't understand -- the ban is not for you folks who read the news and are educated. The ban would help poor old fat aunt Esther who didn't make it High School, believes everything TV advertising tells her, and whose arteries are 95% clogged with KFC fat.
2004-11-20 08:45:28 AM  
I find it terribly ironic that because "Canada has universal health care" and will "come into your home" to treat your stupid ass that people are in favor of basically allowing to gov't to do whatever it wants because they "pay" for your care.

Don't get me wrong, I TOTALLY agree trans fats are horrible for your body, but if the fact that the gov't pays for your health care is reason enough to basically accept any fiat they care to hand down, then the Patriot Act has nothing on "universal health care" for the potential to invade onees home and lifestyle.

I'd happily accept the fact that my email may pass through some gov't computer for a nanosecond, looking for some key words, rather than have the government be able to dictate every aspect of my life because "they're paying for it".
2004-11-20 09:20:15 AM  
There are no safe levels of trans fats. BANNINATE IT!
2004-11-20 09:24:25 AM  
Wow, the government pays for my healthcare??? I thought the 40% of my income that I lose each pay along with other Canadians paid for it.

Who knew?
2004-11-20 09:39:34 AM  

Lard is not dangerous to your health. Your body stores excess energy as lard. Your body knows exactly what to do with lard when you eat it. Transfats are totally foreign.
2004-11-20 09:42:50 AM  
Yeah, unlike marijuana, trans fat is dangerous. However, you should be able to put what you want in your body, food-wise or smoke-wise
2004-11-20 09:56:59 AM  
Why is this ASININE?

Should have COOL tag.

It's about time food manufacturers stopped happily poisoning people.

One's perception of taste is developed at a very early age. It's time to get kids back to loving veggies.

/picky kid who grew up with very little "junk food"
2004-11-20 09:59:23 AM  
Yah, having food and drug regulations is SO like the Patriot AAct. Just keep telling yourselves that, morans.
2004-11-20 10:03:49 AM  
2004-11-20 04:44:14 AM wantedbadass

As the submitter, and a Canadian, let me just say this:

That your headline is out to lunch? Decriminalizing marijuana is not the same as making it legal. It simply means that you don't end up going to jail or getting a criminal record for simple possession. I'm sure that when they ban trans fat simple possession won't warrant jail time and a record.

I'm all for the decriminilization of Marijuana. And I'm all for the generally healthier side of snacks and foods (hell, I don't eat too many cookies or chips anyway). However, I think it's absolutely ridiculous for them to outright BAN trans fats.

I don't. Unless they do, it will remain in food products and it serves no purpose and is detrimental to your health. While it is all well and good to tell people to educate themselves and read the labels, do you really think the 10 year old kid buying a bag of chips will know enough? I hate to bring out the "think of the children" argument, but it's actually applicable here. Kids can't buy booze and smokes, so unless you plan on selling trans fat foods to adults only...

If the gov't is going to continue to allow (and profit from) alcohol and tobacco, I don't see why they should suddenly be banning trans fat.

While the argument has some degree of merit, the biggest reason alcohol isn't banned is that the last time they tried it in North America (and Canada did have Prohibition) they gave the mafia a foothold in North America. Not only that, but alcohol in moderation can actually have some beneficial effects such as blood thinning. As for tobacco, it should be banned (and I'm a smoker), but the resistance level is very high and will lead to black market crime issues as well. The government is taking the wiser approach on that one by moving the price up slowly and steadily. Every time they do, the numbers drop and less people start. Over time it will end smoking through attrition.

If people want to eat crappy food because it tastes better, then let them. Canada is still a free country, let people eat what they like and stop trying to restrict their preferences.

That's a terrible argument. The substance has no value and the taste can be achieved with much less risk. If it isn't banned, it will remain in foods and the problem will continue. You can't even use the weak argument that tobacco has of it generating additional revenue in tax dollars.
2004-11-20 10:18:04 AM  
what's so asinine about it?
2004-11-20 10:23:28 AM  
so many people are out here talking about how terrible it is for government to tell them what they should and shouldn't eat. do you really stop to think about the shiat you are putting in your body? sitting down for a healthy meal is the most important thing you can possibly do for yourself. most people are conscious of that to a degree. for other folks a little help is necessary. i'm talking about the obese bastards who haven't eaten a vegetable in non deep-fried form in the past six months who are so fat that they need to ride one of those damn scooters everywhere cause they can no longer walk half a block without their heart exploding. these people don't make good food choices and likely never will. they love their junk food (hey who doesn't) and will continue to eat it. i'm not a huge fan of government as baby sitter but all they want to do in this case is attempt to make these items even just a bit "healthier". they are not going to ban junk food....seriously do you honestly think that could or would happen? obesity is a problem that is only gonna get worse in north america. the drain on our health care system (in canada) from obesity related illness is already being felt.
2004-11-20 10:43:22 AM  
First, they ban strychnine and rat-feces from processed foods, next thing you know, they will be invading your home to administer health care. It's a slippery slope, y'know.
2004-11-20 10:44:22 AM  
I'm really conflicted here. I vote NDP and tend to think that Layton has a good head on his shoulders. I think transfat is bad and that industry isn't doing enough to cut back on it and offer better alternatives. I do, however, think that it's up to me what I put in my body, thank you very much. So until they ban cigs, I'm going to see this as fairly hypocritical. I know that you have to start <i>somewhere</i>, and that doing something is better than doing nothing, but the libertarian streak in me is kind of pissed off.
2004-11-20 10:46:32 AM  
My point is that instead of having the government pass a law banning something, why don't we as consumers get together and tell companies to stop putting trans fat crap in everything.


/Because I dont care enough to read the contents of everything I eat.
//Also appreciate clean drinking water that is safe without having to perform extensive tests before every glass of water.

As I said, save us from our lazy selves.

Oh, and my drinking water comes from a private company. They make sure it's safe so they that don't get replaced by another company. Are you trying to tell me that if your municpality falls short on clean water, you can fire them?
2004-11-20 10:56:51 AM  
How about this: It should be illegal to use aspartame or transfats in food manufacturing. That stuff'll kill you.
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.