These things happen in waves. A lawsuit now; a public education campaign somewhere else - No one claims that one lawsuit will turn the lemmings back - only that it will open some folks' eyes. Then someone else does something that opens some more eyes -
Consumption of tobacco has been on a downward curve ever since the attorney general's first warning.
c.i.--I will not restate my previously overstated opinion on the subject.
edgar, I see a great big difference between smoking and trans-fat. Let's talk about too much sodium in our diets; it's a real killer. c.i.
cicerone imposter wrote:edgar, I see a great big difference between smoking and trans-fat. Let's talk about too much sodium in our diets; it's a real killer. c.i.
How about a fast every 3 days? Only water, no food.
Cic, let's do talk about sodium in the diet and everything else! That's the point of the suit and why we who were not against the suit feel the way we do.
We can discuss salt all you like; but, it seems to me you pro Oreo folk are trying to hide from the trans-fat argument by throwing up a smoke screen. I say trans-fat; one of you says salt or something else. What about salt? I have only used small amounts of it for about forty or fifty years. A glass of Houston water, generally speaking, contains enough salt to meet one's daily needs. I use sea salt, very sparingly. The chicken soup I made for my lunch today had none added.
On the subject of salt: The salt most folks buy has aluminum in it. Sea salt does not. Aluminum has been associated with such ailments as alzheimers.
edgarblythe wrote:We can discuss salt all you like; but, it seems to me you pro Oreo folk are trying to hide from the trans-fat argument by throwing up a smoke screen. I say trans-fat; one of you says salt or something else. What about salt? I have only used small amounts of it for about forty or fifty years. A glass of Houston water, generally speaking, contains enough salt to meet one's daily needs. I use sea salt, very sparingly. The chicken soup I made for my lunch today had none added.
On the subject of salt: The salt most folks buy has aluminum in it. Sea salt does not. Aluminum has been associated with such ailments as alzheimers.
Edgar--How recent a study are we talking here? The last I heard (way WAY back) is that excessive amounts of aluminum were found in the brains of people who died with alzheimers. This was later attributed to the shrinkage of the brain which was caused by alzheimers. The interpretation presented in that study was that aluminum was not a cause but an effect. I know my information is so old that several more studies have been done since I last looked into the subject.
edgar, There is no such thing as a "you pro Oreo Folk." All I'm trying to say is that trans-fat as a health problem deserves some discussion, but not a 'law suit.' There are far more dangerous food stuff that we put into our bodies every day - knowingly or not knowingly. One lawyer filing a law suit against Oreo because of its trans-fat content is useless, nonproductive, and disproportional to all the other bad stuff we put into our mouths. People do not change dietary habits because one knucklehead thinks he's doing us a favor by filing this law suit. I think I've covered almost all the reasons why. Most parents know that their children are over-weight. Why does this trend continue? Do you think a do-good lawyer filing a suit against over-eating will win converts? It's just a waste of time and effort; changes do not occur where it concerns eating habits just because we know eating bacon and eggs is bad for us. c.i.
I think you misjudge the effectiveness of the law suit. I think you misjudge the harm trans-fat does. I think you misjudge the lawyer by calling him names.
edgar, That's just the point; your link on aluminum shows why this suit against Oreo is misguided. In the total picture of what we eat, trans-fat is but one fraction of the whole. I didn't say anything about trans-fat being harmless - you did. I did not misjudge the lawyer who filed that suit; if he's so concerned about our health, he would do more than be a pipsqueek of a lawyer. He hit and ran; that doesn't take any effort nor imagination to help anybody but himself. c.i.
Cic, he does do more than be a lawyer - he is involved with a website aimed at educating people about trans fats.
And, so what if the t-fats are just a part of what's wrong with our diets. Why can't we try to learn about all the problems one at a time?
I thought the lawyer has withdrawn the law suit.
Transfats are a major factor in many cancer and heart ailments. What's trivial about that?
What I am perceiving in this thread is that there are two basic schools of thought here.
People need to become knowledgable, and choose the foods that are most healthy for them. That is the only way that people can will be able to pick what is best for their health.
The government is responsible for the health of the people. Let the law take care of the food problems in the US. Citizens should not have to concern themselves with making decisions about healthy foods.
Which school of thought do you ascribe to? Why?
My grandmother lived to be 91 years of age. She didn't consult anyone about what to eat. She never visited a physician, never had a pap test and never had a mammogram.
What she did do, is eat whatever, she wanted too. She took a little nap each day and then took a one mile walk. She lived to be 91 years of age, at a time, when most women were lucky to make it to 65 years.
Reason: Good genes and good food.
The final conclusion about living a good healthy life is "take responsibility for yourself." Genes and environment are factors, but also a balanced diet and excercise. How many times have we heard that coffee was bad for us? How many times did they change their conclusions about coffee? We're going to ingest good and bad foods no matter how much effort one puts into avoiding poisons such as trans-fat. For myself, I don't believe in becoming a slave to all the media hype about what is good and what is bad about our diets. I eat moderately, and try to excercise every day. That's the bottom line for me. c.i.
Phoenix, your choices are like those of an anti-abortionist. You're either pro-life, or pro-death. There is middle ground. I think the government is responsible for not allowing food corps to mislead the public. I think that the government/law suits/school systems/doctors' offices/etc can and should be used to get info to the people who may be ignorant on the issues of food health.
littlek, That would be fine if we could depend on the government to protect our interests, but that isn't always so. In California, we have additives in our gasoline that is toxic to living things, but they continue to approve the use of these additives. This is only one example of how our government can't be depended upon to look after our health and welfare - but I'm sure some A2Kers out there can present more - one being the exemption of trans-fit listing on food packages. c.i.
we (colorado) had an incident last fall of contaminated hamburger which was sold nation wide. the fda knew it was contaminated but was constrained by regulations put in place by our congress (protecting business) in that they were not allowed to make public their knowledge of the contaminated hamburger until giving the meat packer 30 days notice that they would make such information public. In the meantime tons of said hamburger was shipped, sold and eaten. Rules were made and then "modified" to protect the business rather than the public. As long as big business owns congress there will be slime-ball politics.
