From: jmfbahciv on 8 Jan 2007 10:23 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 8 Jan 2007 10:31 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 8 Jan 2007 10:33 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 8 Jan 2007 10:27 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 8 Jan 2007 10:28
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 |