1
   

oreos illegal?

 
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 06:30 am
Graham crackers?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 06:49 am
NH, I don't think they should target a product either, it is pissing in the wind as far as I am concerned.

LOL at the bunny! Hee!

edgar, the cop had a legitimate claim for slander, even it was small change er, claims court Rolling Eyes People really should just suck it up and take care of themselves and stop blaming everyone else for their problems....this from the clown who opposes genetically modified foods, lol!
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 06:54 am
Isn't there a new product on the market called a reverse ( or insideout) Oreo? Is it to be banned also?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 07:55 am
Great idea to go for the harmful content instead of the product. How do you do it though? I guess there must be plants that hydrolize fats....?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 08:12 am
Hydrogenating oils prevents--or rather, slows--the eventual rancidity of them.

It's pretty unhealthy to consume, but imagine getting all that plus a few trillion free radicals in every bite.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm......

Now, rationalize that (the awareness that everything you eat both nourishes and poisons you, just in varying degrees).

I'm still going for Mexican food today at lunch.

You only live once....
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 08:20 am
Hydrogenating fats just means increasing the number of hydrogen molecules in any given fat, which is done in a lab. This essentially makes a normally unsaturated fat, such as cooking oils, more 'saturated'. It is pretty much done just to preserve shelf life, as has been stated here. I figure that just shopping smarter is the best solution. Go for Kettle Chips instead of Humpty Dumpty (and their baked ones are awesome, and very low fat).
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 08:23 am
I spend a lot on food. I buy it at the health food grocer. I look at ingredients. AND, I enjoy yummy products that are healthful. It can be done, but most people don't know to do it, don't care to learn the details, can't afford the cost.

It's kind of along the same lines as education getting underfunded. Education is a major building block to the general welfare of a society. Good healthy food is, likewise, a major building block to the well being of any individual. I say, don't undermine your well being by eating crap on a plate.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 08:42 am
Ok, I'm off my soap box now.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:09 am
Quote:
Good healthy food is, likewise, a major building block to the well being of any individual. I say, don't undermine your well being by eating crap on a plate.


I absolutely agree with what you say. But I also agree that the person who chooses to eat crap, in a free society, has the right to do so, without Big Daddy government telling people how to live!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:10 am
But, phoenix, they aren't really chosing todo so if they don't know it's crap to begin with. Ya know?
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:29 am
littlek wrote:
I spend a lot on food. I buy it at the health food grocer. I look at ingredients. AND, I enjoy yummy products that are healthful. It can be done, but most people don't know to do it, don't care to learn the details, can't afford the cost.

It's kind of along the same lines as education getting underfunded. Education is a major building block to the general welfare of a society. Good healthy food is, likewise, a major building block to the well being of any individual. I say, don't undermine your well being by eating crap on a plate.



I go to Stop&Shop and use my discount card. Why not? Why should i make someone else rich with my hard earned $$?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:38 am
littkek- If you go into Mickey Dee's, there is a card that you can ask for that has all the information that you need to know about the nutritional composition of their food. I would be very curious to know what percentage of the people who go there, actually LOOK at the card. And the ones that look, how many walk right out without buying anything?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:45 am
Phoenix - if it says hydrogenated fat on the card, why would the general american know what it is or what that means without having learned it beforehand?

NH - because you'll live healthier is why.
0 Replies
 
Equus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 09:54 am
If God doesn't want us to eat it, why doesn't he/she make it taste bad?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 10:07 am
littlek- I think that it is up to the buying public to make it their business to learn as much as they can. I DON'T think that it is realistic to think that people are going to know something about everything.

For instance, just today my husband copied an article about health risks with various artificial sweeteners. Tomorrow it will be something else. It is up to the individual to keep informed!
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 10:10 am
See, I never read the labels. I'll eat any kind of food, healthy or junky. S'ok, I'm going to croak anyway and the Marlboros or the beers or the drivers or the murderers on the T will probably get me first. They already tax me for prepared food and beer and cigarettes and excise tax and MBTA police that can't ride the T anymore to support the population. I'm going to make sure I'm exempted from an extra junk food tax though. I'll never cost the state money due to obesity.

You can preach about laws that you think should be governing my personal choices, but you can't make me care. Wink I just hope that there doesn't come a day that I can't buy a cheeseburger because lola granola nutrition lobbyists have successfully been able to dictate what I can have for lunch in the 'free world'.

No offense intended folks, it's just the way I feel.
0 Replies
 
TerryDoolittle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 10:13 am
Okay, I'm getting on MY soapbox now. (I had to dust the damned thing off first.)

The following opinions are my own and not endorsed or coerced by Nabisco in any way:
I've smoked, off and on (currently off), for about twenty years. That can't possibly be my fault; it must be the fault of my parents who both smoked throughout my life. But whose fault is it that they smoked? Well, it MUST be the fault of the tobacco industry for making those cigarettes in the first place. So, if I'm diagnosed with cancer I'm going to sue the tobacco industry because I refuse to hold myself accountable for my actions.

I was weaned on Oreo cookies; there's a bag of them in the kitchen cabinet right now. Mom loved them, so my love for them must be her fault too. But the ingredients in Oreos are bad for me! Who knew? I'd better sue the company that makes the cookie because I refuse to hold myself accountable for my actions.

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat; I consume other animal products like milk and cheese. Well, you know, too much red meat is not very good for me....or the animal from which it is taken. So, when my body finally begins to give out, I'm going to sue the ranchers who grew the cows because I refuse to hold myself accountable for my actions.

I think there are enough frivolous lawsuits clogging up our courts. The so called education being provided to consumers by the filing of this suit has the potential to do as much harm as good, if not more. One more high profile nuisance suit is just what we need as a society to validate our own belief that individuals are not responsible for their own actions or decisions.

If we support a high profile frivolous lawsuit for its "educational" value, we're just passing the buck. As adults shouldn't we be teaching the next generation that the freedom of choice for which our ancestors gave their lives is also a heavy responsibility? Instead we're teaching our future leaders that it's okay to blame someone else for everything that goes wrong. We're actively moving from a society built on "liberty, equality, and fraternity" to a society whose motto is "it's not MY fault."
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 10:18 am
Wanna go for a cheeseburger and a beer, TerryDoo? Smile
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 10:18 am
littlek- Found the article. It's from the Wall Strret Journal & I have a subscription. That's why I copied the whole article instead of sending a link:


Quote:
ACHES & CLAIMS

Do Artificial Sweeteners
Present Health Risks?

How safe are artificial sweeteners? It's a question that nags many dieters, diabetics and others trying to steer clear of sugar. The four low-calorie sweeteners in widespread use -- saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium and sucralose -- have the Food and Drug Administration's blessing. But worries persist about adverse effects ranging from headaches to cancer. Before you sour on sweeteners -- or swear by them -- you need to understand the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Saccharin, the oldest sugar substitute, is 300 times as sweet as sugar. It's found in Sweet 'N Low, the popular tabletop sweetener. After studies in the 1970s found it caused bladder cancer in rats, products containing saccharin had to carry warning labels. But subsequent research failed to confirm a risk to people. In 2000 the government removed saccharin from its list of cancer-causing substances. Still, some human research suggests (but doesn't prove) a link between heavy consumption -- six or more servings a day -- and cancer. Any increased risk is probably very small.

Aspartame, used in most diet drinks, is sold as NutraSweet and Equal. It's not as sweet as saccharin and is more expensive. Through the years, it has been blamed for a host of conditions, including brain tumors, seizures, birth defects, multiple sclerosis and lupus, though there's no evidence to back up these claims. Some people also report side effects such as headaches, dizziness and indigestion, but no one knows how widespread they are. The only proven risk is to the small number of people with conditions, such as advanced liver disease, that cause problems metabolizing phenylalanine, an amino acid in aspartame. They are the targets of required warning labels.

Acesulfame potassium is sold as Sunett and as the tabletop product Sweet One. In some products it's combined with other sweeteners. Unlike aspartame, it doesn't break down when heated, so it can be used for baking. It has been tested less thoroughly than aspartame, so researchers tend to know less about it.

Sucralose is made from sugar but is 600 times as sweet. Marketed as Splenda, it's found in some diet drinks and other products and is also ideal for baking. After five years on the U.S. market, sucralose hasn't been linked to any adverse health effects. The independent consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest ranks sucralose as the safest of the four sweeteners.

Whatever sweetener you choose, don't consider it an excuse to indulge regularly in sweets. Even treats that are sugar-free still contain empty calories. If you find yourself guzzling diet drinks all day, try to cut back and go with water instead. Regardless of what some diet books say, don't feel compelled to replace all sugar with artificial sweeteners. Sugar isn't poison, and sugar substitutes are not a panacea. Both should be used the same way: in moderation.

--Robert J. Davis

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105276982260117000,00.html

Updated May 13, 2003




0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 May, 2003 11:10 am
Hey, I just thought of a new slogan: "Live in fear and die anyway."

Eat what you want, but stay informed. Don't sue. Whoops! Just fell off my soapbox...soap is slippery...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » oreos illegal?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 10:08:26