From: jmfbahciv on
In article <45A25C74.A2593FAD(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>T Wake wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > T Wake wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, last time I checked no one forced people to buy trans-fat products
>> >> in the shops.
>> >
>> > The point is that most ppl don't even know they're there. It's not as if
>> > you buy a jar of 'trans fat'. It's in there without you knowing unless
you
>> > scrutinise every single label.
>>
>> People have the option to read labels. If they dont, that is (in effect) a
>> choice. Legislation to make labels more accurate and truthfull would be
>> (IMHO) better - and with out the patronising nonsense that most
supermarkets
>> have gone to.
>
>Have you see the size of the small print they use for ingredients ?

Yes. People bring magnifying glasses with them so they can read
the labels.

>
>I doubt it's possible for say a prepared meal to list every single damn thing
in
>it anyway.

It's the law over here. It's better to list peanuts than to be sued
into bankruptcy by a family who has a member who died from eating
the product.
>
>
>> >> I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products
>> >> as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less
>> >> health related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it
>> illegal?
>> >
>> > Because it's *uniquely* related to heart disease. It's far worse than
most
>> > natural fats you see.
>>
>> It is a grey area to dictate that this is sufficient to legislate against
>> it's use. There are numerous compounds which are currently linked to
various
>> diseases, and sometimes these links are subsequently found to be false.
>>
>> I dont massively disagree with what you are saying - people should know
>> enough to limit their intake of trans-fats - however I do think that
>> consumers should be given the choice to limit it.
>
>If tans-fats could be associated with some clear benefit that would be fine
but
>all I'm aware of is its negatives.

Did you examine the science that have, all of a sudden, concluded
that transfats are poison? No. You are basing your decisions on
the latest dietary fad. A few months ago it was nn-carb. Some months
it was low-carb and other months it was high-carb. I no longer
what these terms means since they became sound bites.
>
>It was originally intended to make candles with btw. Being sold as 'food' was
an
>afterthought.
>
>
>> >> If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely
>> >> the solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather
>> than
>> >> tax or bad the "bad things."
>> >
>> > If it were a totally natural product I'd probably agree but it's not.
Most
>> > of it has to be manufactured.
>>
>> What do you mean by "totally natural product?"
>
>Something that once grew in a field maybe ?

Belladonna grows in a field. So does digitalis sources.
Both of these are bad and they grow in a field. Your criteria
isn't effective. Do you want to ban all of these poisons?


<snip>

/BAH
From: Jonathan Kirwan on
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:13:17 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> butter isn't really butter anymore.
>> >
>> >No ? Does it not come from cows any more ?
>>
>> Buy some butter. Melt it. See how much of the brick is fluff
>> [there's a cooking name for this but I can't remember it].
>
>Use ghee or clarified butter in that case.
>
>
>> >> You think it's funny? Legislating food chemical content is
>> >> new trick. It used to be set by a committee who, presumedly,
>> >> had some education about these things. Now it's lawyers
>> >> legislating the latest diet fad^Winsanity.
>> >
>> >Trans fats are chemically manufactured.
>> >
>> >It's not a natural FOOD !
>>
>> Really?
>
>" The initial purpose was to create a cheaper substance to make candles than the
>expensive animal fats in use at the time. Electricity began to diminish the
>candle market, and since the product looked like lard, they began selling it as
>a food. "
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco
>
>Graham

I like this article. It includes a comment about my bane, high
fructose corn syrup. (About 7 years ago, or so, I experienced my very
first serious alergic reaction to a food -- which turns out over time
to now be isolated as connected with genetically modified corn [that
which includes the insecticide modification]. I now can expect a
probability associated with any consumption of high fructose corn
syrup.)

http://www.motherlindas.com/crisco.htm

Jon
From: Eeyore on


jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines.
> >> >> Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't understand this logic.
> >> >
> >> >The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you
> >> >see how that is different.
> >>
> >> And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone
> >> tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances.
> >
> >No there isn't !
>
> You should try to think this one through a little bit more.
> You might start with radio and TV transmissions.

What have they got to do with it ?

Graham

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <45A25F8D.F0F820A6(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> butter isn't really butter anymore.
>> >
>> >No ? Does it not come from cows any more ?
>>
>> Buy some butter. Melt it. See how much of the brick is fluff
>> [there's a cooking name for this but I can't remember it].
>
>Use ghee or clarified butter in that case.
>
>
>> >> You think it's funny? Legislating food chemical content is
>> >> new trick. It used to be set by a committee who, presumedly,
>> >> had some education about these things. Now it's lawyers
>> >> legislating the latest diet fad^Winsanity.
>> >
>> >Trans fats are chemically manufactured.
>> >
>> >It's not a natural FOOD !
>>
>> Really?
>
>" The initial purpose was to create a cheaper substance to make candles than
the
>expensive animal fats in use at the time. Electricity began to diminish the
>candle market, and since the product looked like lard, they began selling it
as
>a food. "
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco

It doesn't look like lard. It doesn't mix like lard.
It's easier to work with. So what are the ingredients
used to make Crisco?

/BAH
From: jmfbahciv on
In article <45A2617C.840CDE4E(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read
>> >>>first-class mail?
>> >>
>> >>During WWII all mail going and coming from overseas was read.
>> >
>> >Now we have laws forbidding that.
>>
>> These are peacetime laws.
>
>Is this peacetime or not ?

As I have stated a gazillion times in this thread, we are at
war.

/BAH