The Trans Fats Ban

[Gregg]

We all know they're bad for us. Most of us try to avoid them. So it's a good thing that the government is banning them. Right? If nothing else trans fats are the perfect entry point for the government to start removing that pesky personal responsibility from our dietary choices. Really, who's going to protest getting rid of that gook? Bloomberg fell on his ear because he went after a beloved American institution (the Big Gulp). Rookie mistake. This approach is much smoother.

[catherine]

Yeah, this is a tough one. I'm not sure I agree with a ban. I do agree with transparency and education. After all, if they haven't banned nicotine, why should they target trans fats?

But I'm open to discussion about this.

Maybe the FDA should start approving new food products like they do new drugs. Or at least mandate appropriate labeling--starting with GMO labeling.

[creaker]

If it wasn't for government mandate, we'd have no idea what is in anything.

That said, I wonder how "banning" this ban would be. Currently products labeled "trans fat free" are not necessarily trans fat free - they just have less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving.

Personally, I wonder when we're all going to be considered grown up enough to buy those chocolate eggs with toys in them that are banned for import because they are "dangerous".

[ApatheticNoMore]

I wonder if whatever replaces trans fats will be much healthier.

So the Weston A Price people have articles in which they talk about fat as PRECIOUS. Good fat is precious (of course they're not against saturated fat which I guess one could fight over), but regardless it's obvious the fat produced by grass fed animals in their meat or milk or eggs doesn't come super cheaply, and even less controversial think about this: even olive oil is NOT cheap. Sure there's often adulterated imitations that come cheap, but they are adulterated, good quality real olive oil is not necessarily cheap. Omega 3 fats from fish are not cheap and increasingly polluted. Heck even the precursors for omega3s from walnuts or flax may not be that cheap and they're fragile, they can't be deep fried and come out ok. So you can replace trans fats with cheap omega 6s fats (because even replacing them with plain old butter will cost you) but those are also unhealthy for people. As unhealthy as transfats? I don't know, I don't' have *quantitative* data on that, maybe not. I'm just saying they are also unhealthy. So I don't know how much better off we'll be. And Micky D's is going to continue to go for the cheap, I mean this is obvious. The fat is precious is meant of course to spark a deeper appreciation of the entire world ecosystem on which one depends on to eat. Pollute the oceans so much that all the fish are radioactive and stuffed to the uh gills with corexit and yet the human brain still requires omega 3's to function properly, it's evolutionary. Pollute all the animals with toxins up the food chain and it will come right back at ya. Even olive trees require certain climate conditions to survive.

So can you say bandaid? Mikey D's and the like are never going to be compatible with a healthy food system (although yea noone really cares if you eat them once in a blue moon). A healthy food system is precious, it may cost some in terms of dollars, but dollars aren't at root the point, ecosystems are.

So with transfats you do have a COMPLETELY WORTHLESS product whose only virtue is cheapness (it's virtue isn't even the ability to thrill the taste buds, animal fats like butter obviously do that much better) and then that cheapness wrecks your body long term. While with big gulps you can at least see what individual humans (not corporate persons) get out of them (the sugar plus caffeine rush naturally - it makes them feel good in the short run, that's not so easily written off), transfats serve no actual purpose for individual human beings at all even in the *short* term! Totally worthless, of negative value. But the food issue really runs much deeper. It requires a respect of ecosystems. Respect existence or expect resistance.

[Gregg]

Yeah, this is a tough one. I'm not sure I agree with a ban. I do agree with transparency and education. After all, if they haven't banned nicotine, why should they target trans fats?

But I'm open to discussion about this.

Maybe the FDA should start approving new food products like they do new drugs. Or at least mandate appropriate labeling--starting with GMO labeling.

That brings up a host of interesting threads catherine...

Nicotine has a few hundred billion more dollars backing it than does partially hydrogenated soy bean oil. You hate to say that it always boils down to money, but it does.

As far as food labels I guess we would first have to define food. Seriously! It's not as easy as it sounds when half the products on the shelf are a molecule away from being plastic. Apparently our only real criteria for something to be considered food is that Americans will eat it. And we aren't terribly discerning.

+1 for GMO labeling, but again, what exactly (for legislative purposes) is a GMO? Technically a simple hybrid, pollen from one plant landing on the stigma of another, produces a GMO. Obviously not the same as Round-Up Ready or terminator genes, but it does show a huge gray area waiting to be exploited as needed.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Nicotine has more black market potential. Psst wanna buy a tub of margarine? Pretty much because it actually makes human beings maybe feel good but mostly get addicted to it. Transfats are of no real even short term benefit to individuals beyond cheapness (they only serve a corporate purpose like I said).

GMO initiatives were pretty clear on what GMOs are, not things that would result from natural breeding. I could say I would like the FDA to mandate GMO labeling, and why not, why not be informed about what is in our food, but it has not a snowballs chance of happening. Obama has hired plenty of Monstanto people. In fact they've been trying at the Federal level to BAN states from imposing labeling even if such an initiative were to pass! So that's what you are up against in trying to get federal labeling.

Plus labeling may soon be illegal by international trade treaties anyway (the TPP quite possibly though the whole thing is so secretive). The people are 1000 steps behind where the actual corporate state is (oh I may say our government is a corporate state because it's pretty sold out, but rule of corporations through things like the TPP will REALLY be a corporate state).

[kib]

For a while I was low carb dieting, and what I discovered is that I got much more satisfaction and simple peace of mind by identifying some really healthy foods that I loved and definitely could eat, rather than poring through tens of thousands of items to decide just How Bad each one was and which one was Least Bad.

It seems to me that we as a nation have become obsessed with putting a "badness score" on just about everything, and then mandating levels of badness we will and won't tolerate. In my dreams, rather than putting the evil eye on a few Very Bad foods, the country does honest research about links between food and health and then celebrates the foods it discovers to be good for us and focuses its money and attention on supporting those. I think, in other words, that this transfat ban is just another bunch of posturing that keeps people negatively focused instead of joy based.

[catherine]

In my dreams, rather than putting the evil eye on a few Very Bad foods, the country does honest research about links between food and health and then celebrates the foods it discovers to be good for us and focuses its money and attention on supporting those. I think, in other words, that this transfat ban is just another bunch of posturing that keeps people negatively focused instead of joy based.

Yes. Well put.

[bae]

So with transfats you do have a COMPLETELY WORTHLESS product whose only virtue is cheapness ... transfats serve no actual purpose for individual human beings at all even in the *short* term! Totally worthless, of negative value.

Actually, that's untrue. In many situations, calories are calories, even if they come from non-PC sources.

I go on walkabout in hostile-ish places for weeks at a time, like the Arctic. Trans-fats are still calories, and they'll still keep you alive, even if some claim they are "nutritionally worthless". Given the choice of starving/dying from exposure, or eating a stick of margarine, I know which I'd pick. (The food I often carry on my trips is essentially butter sticks, I'm looking for maximizing calories per pound...)

[catherine]

Actually, that's untrue. In many situations, calories are calories, even if they come from non-PC sources.

I go on walkabout in hostile-ish places for weeks at a time, like the Arctic. Trans-fats are still calories, and they'll still keep you alive, even if some claim they are "nutritionally worthless". Given the choice of starving/dying from exposure, or eating a stick of margarine, I know which I'd pick. (The food I often carry on my trips is essentially butter sticks, I'm looking for maximizing calories per pound...)

Well, unlike you, bae, most people here in the lower 48 are not doing much walkabout. Driveabout, sitabout and eatabout maybe.

[bae]

Well, unlike you, bae, most people here in the lower 48 are not doing much walkabout. Driveabout, sitabout and eatabout maybe.

Then they have bigger problems than trans-fats. Regulate couches and desk chairs :-)

You need a huge amount of calories to maintain your weight if you are doing significant physical labor. And to a first approximation, it doesn't matter *where* the calories come from, as long as you get enough non-calorie nutrients in there somehow.

5'11", 220 pound male, 25 years old, sedentary: 2255 calories/day to maintain weight
Same fellow can go through 4000-5000 calories a day firefighting, or logging, or other such fun stuff.

They issue us ice cream at fire scenes. Dense calories, cools down core temp. I can't eat enough to maintain my body weight when we are working hard unless I force myself, or convert to a all-bacon/fat diet.

[kib]

All bacon diet, now you're talking! The thing is, the dispatchers at those fires often eat the same caloric intake as the line. There just isn't a lot of mindfulness about what's going in most people's mouths, and instead of advocating mindfulness, we're advocating more laws. How about a law that everyone should give some thought to what they eat?

As always, I blame it on unchecked capitalism. Ethical business practice should provide affordable healthy food, not more pennies in stockholder's pockets no matter what the human cost. It should be a matter of making good choices available to everyone, not outright banning choices that could conceivably be wrong but, as in Bae's example, may at times be right.

[bae]

All bacon diet, now you're talking!

Here's my favorite BLT recipe:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-crfi_HzbFvI/UImK61TjynI/AAAAAAAAGiw/no0fTSE9_F8/s720/Awesomized.jpg

[kib]

it needs a little mayo.

[catherine]

it needs a little mayo.

And what about the "L"?

[bae]

And what about the "L"?

Deer fence failure.

[catherine]

Deer fence failure.

Those nasty deer! They have such a sense of entitlement!

[The Storyteller]

I don't visit this area much any more, but when I saw it in the Recent Activity thingie I had to poke a look. I was thinking, what's to discuss? I mean, how could anybody possibly be against banning the manufacture of something that will kill you when there are perfectly good alternatives that won't?

I should have known.

Y'all crack me up.

[iris lilies]

Well, unlike you, bae, most people here in the lower 48 are not doing much walkabout. Driveabout, sitabout and eatabout maybe.

oh that was funny! thanks for my laugh of the day.

[puglogic]

Note to self: Try BLT lettuce wraps.

Chopped good bacon, fresh tomatoes, some sort of pesto, wrapped in romaine leaves. Paleo friendly! :)

[Gregg]

Well, its 9* outside right now so if I'm going to stay true to my seasonal eating mantra I would have to admit the L and the T are done till spring. Not quite as tragic as it sounds...

1327

[Gregg]

I don't visit this area much any more, but when I saw it in the Recent Activity thingie I had to poke a look. I was thinking, what's to discuss? I mean, how could anybody possibly be against banning the manufacture of something that will kill you when there are perfectly good alternatives that won't?

I should have known.

Y'all crack me up.

In my thinking the actual issue isn't the trans fats or what they can do to you, its having a central authority compelled to do 'what's best for me'. There isn't much about trans fats I like, but its that creeping level of oversight that really leaves the bad taste in my mouth. If we want to talk about what's really bad for us then the sky's the limit, right? Soda has no socially redeeming qualities so should probably be banned. Individually owned and operated autos are probably involved in as many deaths per year as trans fats so they have to be on the table. Forget about nicotine, guns, whiskey and rock & roll. Like it says in your tagline, you have to draw the line somewhere. We need to do a much better job of educating people so they can look out for themselves without benevolent overlords. Problem is the government being deep under the sheets with the producers of all those things that are so bad for us while at the same time being in control of that education system. No conflict of interest there as long as you admit government no longer has any real interest in doing what's best for the citizens.

[puglogic]

I generally look favorably on well-run programs that use the collective buying power of our tax dollars to research what's likely to kill us, and then shares that knowledge with the general populace. I think that's much more efficient than 200 million busy people trying to google an entire product package's worth of ingredients to find out which ones are likely to shorten their lives.

And if there's a substance that's really egregious, like trans fats, DDT, leaded gasoline, thalidomide, the deadly herbicide du jour, I haven't got a problem with it being banned. Done with intelligence (and it isn't always) I am grateful there's somebody in government who actually has my back in that way, and I'm smart enough to see how NOT banning dangerous things costs the government -- and thus me -- a ton of money. But I'm not the personality type who takes that as a personal affront.

This rabid fever certain people have against "being told what to do" is just silly to me. There's a whole segment of the population that objects to speed limits, bans of poisons, energy efficiency standards, anything that they perceive steps on their touchy little toes. (Usually it's the TJ segment of Myers-Briggs, for the record) I can see them as having been the same little kids objecting to having a bedtime, and as teenagers hating being forbidden to date the local crack dealer....stop telling me what to do!

I'm big on personal responsibility. Labelling hot coffee (seriously?), banning certain playground equipment, there's a LOT of stupidity out there for sure.

But sometimes, I think it's fine to have the greater good in mind.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I wasn't taking huge issue with any of that, my nuance was mostly just a historical memory that dates back more than 2 minutes. It wasn't just industry that made transfats so big, industry yes it was convenient for them and they are what they are, but it was also the authorities - the medical establishment, govt too, that told us to consume transfats instead of saturated fat. So now they have another simplistic answer, even though industry is just going to do whatever is cheapest so long as it's legal.

[creaker]

In my thinking the actual issue isn't the trans fats or what they can do to you, its having a central authority compelled to do 'what's best for me'. There isn't much about trans fats I like, but its that creeping level of oversight that really leaves the bad taste in my mouth. If we want to talk about what's really bad for us then the sky's the limit, right? Soda has no socially redeeming qualities so should probably be banned. Individually owned and operated autos are probably involved in as many deaths per year as trans fats so they have to be on the table. Forget about nicotine, guns, whiskey and rock & roll. Like it says in your tagline, you have to draw the line somewhere. We need to do a much better job of educating people so they can look out for themselves without benevolent overlords. Problem is the government being deep under the sheets with the producers of all those things that are so bad for us while at the same time being in control of that education system. No conflict of interest there as long as you admit government no longer has any real interest in doing what's best for the citizens.

The question really comes down to where to draw the lines. Giving the private sector the flexibility of putting DDT or asbestos or mercury or lead back into products would have positives as well - and we can look out for ourselves so that really should not be an issue?

[Suzanne]

I generally look favorably on well-run programs that use the collective buying power of our tax dollars to research what's likely to kill us, and then shares that knowledge with the general populace. I think that's much more efficient than 200 million busy people trying to google an entire product package's worth of ingredients to find out which ones are likely to shorten their lives.

And if there's a substance that's really egregious, like trans fats, DDT, leaded gasoline, thalidomide, the deadly herbicide du jour, I haven't got a problem with it being banned. Done with intelligence (and it isn't always) I am grateful there's somebody in government who actually has my back in that way, and I'm smart enough to see how NOT banning dangerous things costs the government -- and thus me -- a ton of money. But I'm not the personality type who takes that as a personal affront.

This rabid fever certain people have against "being told what to do" is just silly to me. There's a whole segment of the population that objects to speed limits, bans of poisons, energy efficiency standards, anything that they perceive steps on their touchy little toes. (Usually it's the TJ segment of Myers-Briggs, for the record) I can see them as having been the same little kids objecting to having a bedtime, and as teenagers hating being forbidden to date the local crack dealer....stop telling me what to do!

I'm big on personal responsibility. Labelling hot coffee (seriously?), banning certain playground equipment, there's a LOT of stupidity out there for sure.

But sometimes, I think it's fine to have the greater good in mind.

+1

[Gregg]

I generally look favorably on well-run programs that use the collective buying power of our tax dollars to research what's likely to kill us, and then shares that knowledge with the general populace. I think that's much more efficient than 200 million busy people trying to google an entire product package's worth of ingredients to find out which ones are likely to shorten their lives.

And if there's a substance that's really egregious, like trans fats, DDT, leaded gasoline, thalidomide, the deadly herbicide du jour, I haven't got a problem with it being banned. Done with intelligence (and it isn't always) I am grateful there's somebody in government who actually has my back in that way, and I'm smart enough to see how NOT banning dangerous things costs the government -- and thus me -- a ton of money. But I'm not the personality type who takes that as a personal affront.

This rabid fever certain people have against "being told what to do" is just silly to me. There's a whole segment of the population that objects to speed limits, bans of poisons, energy efficiency standards, anything that they perceive steps on their touchy little toes. (Usually it's the TJ segment of Myers-Briggs, for the record) I can see them as having been the same little kids objecting to having a bedtime, and as teenagers hating being forbidden to date the local crack dealer....stop telling me what to do!

I'm big on personal responsibility. Labelling hot coffee (seriously?), banning certain playground equipment, there's a LOT of stupidity out there for sure.

But sometimes, I think it's fine to have the greater good in mind.

Very well said pug. And like creaker said, it comes down to where lines should be drawn. No matter how we proceed the results will be selective. Do trans fats kill more people than saturated fats in $.99 cheeseburgers, for example? Not to sidetrack to that, but what really seems to happen is that bans follow bucks. Or rather they run away from bucks. The bigger the bucks behind something the less likely it is to be banned. Look at nicotine for the classic example. We KNOW it kills more people and does so in a much more efficient way than trans fats do, but I can waltz right over to the Quickie Mart and buy all I want.

Working for the greater good is, IMO, the very highest calling of government. The reason I bristle at these bans is that I'm now jaded enough to think that there might be more to it than meets the eye. From my seat there is always an ulterior motive, we'll just have to wait and see what it is this time.

[Alan]

In my thinking the actual issue isn't the trans fats or what they can do to you, its having a central authority compelled to do 'what's best for me'. There isn't much about trans fats I like, but its that creeping level of oversight that really leaves the bad taste in my mouth.......

You're not alone in your thinking.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." ~ C.S. Lewis

[Rogar]

I don't see it as a choice between government control and some sort of freedom or liberty. I think of it more like who I want most to control what people eat, mega business or mega government. While bacon is pretty straight forward (unless hidden in ice cream) trans fats are on an obscure label if they are labelled at all. (I suspect some baked goods are not labeled.) It is more economical to use in some processes even though good alternative exist and the health risk is well know. I see this as big business controlling my diet for the sake of profit at the public's expense and consider it a control issue that violates my freedom. I see how bacon could rely on assuming personally responsibility, but realistically how many people are going to squint to see the ingredients on crackers and cookies.

I trust government more than business on this one.

[Alan]

....I trust government more than business on this one.I would argue that we shouldn't trust either, and further, business doesn't force me to make bad choices, I do enough of that on my own, and government shouldn't be in the business of protecting me from myself.

[Rogar]

I would argue that we shouldn't trust either, and further, business doesn't force me to make bad choices, I do enough of that on my own, and government shouldn't be in the business of protecting me from myself.

I suppose if it were just me I would agree. My optimistic side thinks that maybe there are unsuspecting, uneducated, or otherwise innocent people who have some level of trust in the system to protect them from significant health risks in their consumption of things. I can see some valid analogies in things like lead in paint, second hand smoke in public places, or pesticides and other chemicals in food.

My pessimistic side sees a large portion of folks who have little concern over their diet and will probably live and eat in an unhealthy way regardless of what is or isn't regulated. It is a fine line over what constitutes a health risk in processed foods and what is deserving of some sort of regulation that results in a nanny culture.

[catherine]

I suppose if it were just me I would agree. My optimistic side thinks that maybe there are unsuspecting, uneducated, or otherwise innocent people who have some level of trust in the system to protect them from significant health risks in their consumption of things. I can see some valid analogies in things like lead in paint, second hand smoke in public places, or pesticides and other chemicals in food.

My pessimistic side sees a large portion of folks who have little concern over their diet and will probably live and eat in an unhealthy way regardless of what is or isn't regulated. It is a fine line over what constitutes a health risk in processed foods and what is deserving of some sort of regulation that results in a nanny culture.

Yes, we all make our own choices. I look at it as if we (the Average Consumer) are on a bridge ready to jump off into the sea of unhealthy choices. There is a big brawny guy on the shore beneath (Business with vested interest in having the jumper jump) saying, "Come on! Come on! Jump! The water's great!" Then there's the friend of the big, brawny guy on the shore--just as big and brawny (the Government)--standing, watching. And instead of telling their friend not to cajole the person into jumping they're saying to the jumper, "Hey, it's all up to you. Do whatever you want."

Now, will the person on the bridge listen to the guy on the shore telling him to jump? Depends on a lot of things. How open he/she is to suggestion, state of mind at the time, whether or not they have their own friends saying "Don't jump!" It's not a decision likely to be made in a vacuum. But in a movie, you'd cheer on the big, brawny friend who tells the guy yelling, "Don't be jerk! Stop telling him to jump!" That's the role I'd like the Government to play.

[creaker]

I would argue that we shouldn't trust either, and further, business doesn't force me to make bad choices, I do enough of that on my own, and government shouldn't be in the business of protecting me from myself.

Businesses would expect you to make uninformed or misinformed choices - ingredient listings, nutritional value statements, listed country of origin, not making unsubstantiated product claims and more are all things business has fought against. Usually under the auspice that they don't want to "confuse" the consumer.

[Gregg]

I tend to support businesses that treat me like an adult while providing the types of products I want/need. It really is possible to vote with your dollars even if the majority are in a position where they have to vote with the least amount of dollars possible. At some point the discussion becomes paradoxical. Do companies produce cheap, crappy options because consumers demand them or do consumers buy them simply because that's what companies produce? Does it matter? And the big question: how do we get out of the cheap & crappy vortex?

[ApatheticNoMore]

My optimistic side thinks that maybe there are unsuspecting, uneducated, or otherwise innocent people who have some level of trust in the system to protect them from significant health risks in their consumption of things. I can see some valid analogies in things like lead in paint, second hand smoke in public places, or pesticides and other chemicals in food.

My pessimistic side sees a large portion of folks who have little concern over their diet and will probably live and eat in an unhealthy way regardless of what is or isn't regulated. It is a fine line over what constitutes a health risk in processed foods and what is deserving of some sort of regulation that results in a nanny culture.

yea my take on people as well, that some people are just naive and trusting in systems and not educated, and some have lives that just make it too difficult to do the right thing even if they kinda want to, but there are definitely those who seem to have a psychological need to eat garbage almost, and I fully expect them to continue to do so! They may have been brainwashed into believing healthy food can't taste good but now it's a religion to them (btw if the brainwashing is on this level, which I think it is, bans don't much address it).

But when I see people portrayed as too lazy to even read labels, I just roll my eyes and think: and these people vote :~) (and I absolutely without a doubt support the franchise so ...).

The industry being industry is what I fully expect to be the case and so cheap GMO corn oil and soybean oil will replace cheap HYRDROGENATED GMO corn and soybean oil if the price is right. Business being business isn't so easily stopped by makeshift damns by politicians being politicians (and thus almost always morally and intellectually unserious) and throwing nice sounding legislation out as red meat (um sorry I mean transfat free grassfed soy burgers).

[bae]

But when I see people portrayed as too lazy to even read labels, I just roll my eyes and think: and these people vote :~) (and I absolutely without a doubt support the franchise so ...).


I don't, anymore.

If you can't trust a man to decide what size soda to buy, or what kind of toilet to install in his own bathroom, how can you trust him to vote?

We don't let children vote. Why should we let people who want the government to be their Mommy vote?

[Alan]

If you can't trust a man to decide what size soda to buy, or what kind of toilet to install in his own bathroom, how can you trust him to vote?


I think its a variation on the Stockholm syndrome. Take away their liberty, rule rather than govern, foster dependency and voila, solid supporters.

[bae]

I think its a variation on the Stockholm syndrome. Take away their liberty, rule rather than govern, foster dependency and voila, solid supporters.

Solid supporters who then demand even more care and attention from Mommy.

My County is currently operating in a formal state of emergency due to a utilities outage. You can really see the division in personality types in this sort of event.

[Gregg]

Solid supporters who then demand even more care and attention from Mommy.

And thus the reason it is ultimately unsustainable. Too bad there aren't enough examples of that in human history for us to learn from before we fall into the trap.

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you can't trust a man to decide what size soda to buy, or what kind of toilet to install in his own bathroom, how can you trust him to vote?

if you don't trust them to vote you are trusting others to rule over them with them having no say whatsoever in the matter. That's worse. No intelligent others that are so much better at making decisions across the board exist. Even though better and worse people may very well exist. The sorting mechanism of weatlh and power in this society seems as biased toward the worst people as much as anything. So unless you have a way to guarantee that only saints vote ...


I think its a variation on the Stockholm syndrome. Take away their liberty, rule rather than govern, foster dependency and voila, solid supporters.

Transfats are pretty minor in terms of liberty considering (I'd rather fight assasination programs personally, but popular consensus seems to gloss over the former and to prefer making big deals out of molehills - even if I don't think those molehills offer much of a solution - transfat bans will just mean soybean oil etc.. They don't offer much of a solution because they are trivial, don't get to root causes.).

Besides as for things that foster obedience, submissiveness, dependency and there are probably many in this society: the average job does that to a FAR greater degree than banning transfats ever will (because in the average job a person is surveiled - often every single action taken except maybe when they use the bathroom, a person is made to follow arbitrary rules and hierarchy even when it doesn't make sense, conform to arbitrary schedules (it often is facetime wanted period), seldom able to fully use their own conclusions and they knows it etc.) and this is much of one's waking time. Ban jobs. But really can you keep your soul in such a situation? Perhaps, but it's hard :). I've been places emotionally and in action that convince me of this (of how difficult it is - I do the difficult though - not that it was anything that huge) but ... shrug.

I have that independence streak pug talks about a mile wide :). But I can't say I eat many transfats, not being that into self-poisoning when there are better alternatives really.

[bae]

if you don't trust them to vote you are trusting others to rule over them with them having no say whatsoever in the matter.

Morton's Fork.

You are excluding a whole range of other solutions. For instance, examine the assumptions you are building into "rule over them"...

[creaker]

I don't, anymore.

If you can't trust a man to decide what size soda to buy, or what kind of toilet to install in his own bathroom, how can you trust him to vote?

We don't let children vote. Why should we let people who want the government to be their Mommy vote?

Simple then - just dismantle government. Anarchy is like any other form of government - it's viable, if you can make it work.

[JaneV2.0]

...

But I'm not the personality type who takes that as a personal affront.

This rabid fever certain people have against "being told what to do" is just silly to me. There's a whole segment of the population that objects to speed limits, bans of poisons, energy efficiency standards, anything that they perceive steps on their touchy little toes. (Usually it's the TJ segment of Myers-Briggs, for the record) I can see them as having been the same little kids objecting to having a bedtime, and as teenagers hating being forbidden to date the local crack dealer....stop telling me what to do!
...

Hahaha! INTJ here. You may have a point. I have no problem with speed limits or poison control, but I think this is unnecessary. Just tell me it's in there, and let me decide for myself. Nanny creep is everywhere, it seems.

[Rogar]

But when I see people portrayed as too lazy to even read labels, I just roll my eyes and think: and these people vote :~) (and I absolutely without a doubt support the franchise so ...).

The industry being industry is what I fully expect to be the case and so cheap GMO corn oil and soybean oil will replace cheap HYRDROGENATED GMO corn and soybean oil if the price is right. Business being business isn't so easily stopped by makeshift damns by politicians being politicians (and thus almost always morally and intellectually unserious) and throwing nice sounding legislation out as red meat (um sorry I mean transfat free grassfed soy burgers).

Uh-oh. My voting privileges might be in danger:) I actually try to follow the Mike Pollen philosophy on labels, but not always and some of the labels seem to be written in tongues from beyond the galaxy. I can picture some genius coming up with a smart phone app where you can scan the UPC label and get warnings on any bad ingredients.

Part of the problem with business being business is that there is only one business. In the food industry it is probably something like Conagra, Monsanto, and General Mills. At least as far as the mainstream goes.

[iris lilies]

...We don't let children vote. Why should we let people who want the government to be their Mommy vote?

I love this, it may be my new tagline. If you see it used elsewhere on the 'net just be flattered, I'll credit you!