Well I suppose I shouldn’t generalize. I’ve heard many a Libertarian rail against government regulations that I consider quite reasonable, including pollution regulations. But maybe that’s not all of you. I just don’t ever seem to see eye-to-eye with Libertarians. For example, I have no problem with gun-control legislation, but I’ve had some pretty heated discussions with Libertarians who were dead-set against the idea. I agree with the philosophy that you can’t force people to do what you think is good for them, but I think you’d find that I disagree with you on lots of other stuff. If I misunderstand Libertarianism, it’s because there are too many people calling themselves Libertarians who are misrepresenting it.
Your penchant for exaggerating the argument of others is getting quite annoying. You know perfectly well what I argued was that given the choice between an outright ban and a warning sign, that the latter is the better choice. How you get from that that I have an “enthusiasm” for warnings is beyond me.
It’s like 2 farmers having a discussion:
Farmer 1: “A coyote got into the hen house; let’s go out and shoot all the coyotes within 10 miles.”
Farmer 2: “Why don’t we just put up a fence? Wouldn’t that be a less extreme solution?”
Farmer 1: “Why do you hate coyotes so much?”
I’ll be magnanimous and concede that “enthusiasm” was an exaggeration on my part – purely for rhetorical effect, you understand. But what about the point here, that warnings are fruitless because people tune them out? Meaning that warnings, instead of being meaningful public policy, are actually sham policy, that you and I are paying for.
Just calm the fuck down. I live in Denmark, which happens to be transfat free for a while now. Guess what? You can’t tell the difference. There was some problem with pastry makers having to change recipies a bit, but the issue is totally dead here. People seem to trust their government enough to believe that it’s working with their general well-being in mind. I don’t particularly care if the evidence is in or not, to be honest. All I do know is that it is something synthetic, and that isn’t necessarily bad, but it probably isn’t good either.
We all realize you are waiting with baited breath for any action by the gov. that would support your nanny state outrage, but this ain’t the one. I am also for the reduction of any kind of additives to most products. Smoking, for example, is a good one.
O.K., you make a good point. I don’t think it’s an entirely useless principle, though. As I mentioned before, I think the food labeling that’s done now is quite useful. It’s extremely useful to me to be able to view the fat and sodium content of the food I buy.
Define additive.
Okay, I’m calm, I’m calm. I think I’ve had just about enough of transfats for one day anyway.
C’mon, just have one more bite of Crisco. 
No, thanks, I live on pure duck fat.
Amen!! Finally, we’ll get some decent biscuits again!
Down here,
on post 30, I wrote this: "The article that Milloy is whining about is likely this one:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/4/1006S
"A Ascherio and WC Willett
Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
trans Fatty acids are formed during the process of partial hydrogenation in which liquid vegetable oils are converted to margarine and vegetable shortening. Concern has existed that this process may have adverse consequences because natural essential fatty acids are destroyed and the new artificial isomers are structurally similar to saturated fats, lack the essential metabolic activity of the parent compounds, and inhibit the enzymatic desaturation of linoleic and linolenic acid. In the past 5 y a series of metabolic studies has provided unequivocal evidence that trans fatty acids increase plasma concentrations of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and reduce concentrations of high-density-lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol relative to the parent natural fat. In these same studies, trans fatty acids increased the plasma ratio of total to HDL cholesterol nearly twofold compared with saturated fats. On the basis of these metabolic effects and the known relation of blood lipid concentrations to risk of coronary artery disease, we estimate conservatively that 30,000 premature deaths/y in the United States are attributable to consumption of trans fatty acids. Epidemiologic studies, although not conclusive on their own, are consistent with adverse effects of this magnitude or even larger. Because there are no known nutritional benefits of trans fatty acids and clear adverse metabolic consequences exist, prudent public policy would dictate that their consumption be minimized and that information on the trans fatty acid content of foods be available to consumers. "
Which was published in a highly respected Journal, with scads of evidence, and has been citing many many times by others.
Here’s another article about dangers of trans-fats:
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/con...tract/21/7/1233
"Replacement of Dietary Saturated Fatty Acids by Trans Fatty Acids Lowers Serum HDL Cholesterol and Impairs Endothelial Function in Healthy Men and Women "
Yet another cite:
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/5
…
The point about trans-fats is that they are bad for you, and that they have no benefits other than a tiny price saving. "
Bullshit
OK, other than (I did leave this out, since it’s minor and it’s not what they are talking about) natural trans-fats likeconjugated linoleic acid, etc , what benefits do artificial trans-fats have?
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/trans-fats.html
*The health implications of trans fats were recognised as early as 1958, when Dr Ancel Keys reported that he believed that hydrogenated vegetable oils with their trans fats components were responsible for the sudden and significant increase in ischaemic heart disease over the previous decade. The response was predictable - the oil manufacturers buried the research and began the false attack on animal fats.
More recently, University of Maryland researched Dr Mary Enig proved in 1978 that the increased cancer rates were directly associated with total fat intake and vegetable fat intake but not with consumption of animal fat. Dr Enig, who is a consultant clinician, specialising in nutrition has since spent the last 25 years warning of the dangers of trans fats and the relative safety of animal fats.
In fact, even the Harvard School of Public Health has issued a warning regarding the comsumption of margarines, snack foods and other foods containing hydrogenated oils (and their trans fats), in favour of butter.
Recognition of the dangers of trans fats
More recently, concern over the role of trans fats in disease has led a number of major food companies to remove these components from their products. this is probably a response to the recent FDA ruling that, as of 2006, all food labels must include the proportion of trans fats in addition to other fat content…Naturally occurring trans fats have health benefits.
Very occasionally, trans fats do occur in nature. The most commonly known is conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Unlike its synthetic counterparts, CLA is known to have many health benefits, however, these benefits are not in any way shared with the synthetic trans fats produced during hydrogenation."*
"*Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally.[3]
Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions (see below), are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines."*
http://www.notrans.iastate.edu/sizzling.html
*"Financial benefits
The extended frying life of 1% lin soybean oil compared with hydrogenated soybean oil provides financial benefits to food services and restaurants. Food managers commonly have reported that the 1% lin oil can be used at least 25% longer than hydrogenated soybean oil before it has to be changed. Jason Wheelock, kitchen manager of the popular Hickory Park restaurant in Ames, Iowa, tested the 1% lin oil. He routinely changed the hydrogenated oil in his fryers once a week. After a week of using the 1% lin oil, it looked so good that he used it another week. He said the oil still looked good after two weeks of use. Although 1% lin oil costs more to produce, its extended frying life offsets the higher purchase price.
Benefits in food appearance and flavor
Food managers like the crispness, extended freshness, and flavor of foods fried in 1% lin oil. Erica Beirman, manager of a dining center on the Iowa State University campus, prepared fried foods in 1% lin and hydrogenated soybean oil. She reported that the students did not notice any difference in the flavor of foods prepared with the two oils. “But our cooks have noticed foods fried in the new oil retain their crispness longer,” she said.
Jason Wheelock of Hickory Park restaurant switched from hydrogenated soybean oil to the 1% lin. “Our testing has been very successful. We didn’t tell our customers about the switch and we haven’t had any comments. That’s a good thing,” he said. "*
Try reading the thread. Your link addresses nothing I have posted thus far.
Biscuits? That’s the best you can come up with? 
Letting 30,000 dudes die a year so as your biscuits can be slightly more flaky? :rolleyes: You do know that most trans-fats aren’t used in bicuit making, right? They are used in fried foods, where there is no real advantage as my cites have proved.
And even with biscuits, you have: lard, bacon fat, poultry fat, butter or the New Trans-fat free Crisco.
And, you complete and utter moron- you can still make your fucking biscuits with all the Trans-fat loaded shortening* you *want. NY isn’t stopping individual from using it, just restaurants from cooking with it- where it’s a hidden menace, as restaurant food doesn’t come with labels. That’s the issue. One doesn’t know if those fires are cooked in canola oil or cheap-knock-off Crisco-like substance loaded with artery clogging trans-fats. Some dudes may want to avoid choice #2, and they couldn’t. No labels.
Note that McDonalds Fries haven’t been the same since they stopped frying them in Beef fat. Yum.
OK, one more time. **Trans-fats= bad. **
I was wondering about this.
Say biscuits were made in all their saturated fatty glory (lard or whatever).
Which would be the more heart-healthy meal?
Two lardy biscuits with everything else - Eggs, hash browns, spreads, made with trans-fat free products (besides lard)
or
Everything - two biscuits, eggs, hash browns, spreads, made with trans-fat containing products?
Since baked goods make up such a small portion of one’s diet, how bad can a few a week be? Or maybe restaurants can even offer a choice of “traditional” biscuits or fat-free biscuits? Can everybody live with that? 
apologies if this was mentioned upthread
In other words, you concede my point. There are certain benefits to using trans-fats.
…and I use lard in my biscuits.
I believe you’ve hit on one of the big differences between Denmark and the U.S. right there. I have a hard time imagining a lot of Americans, whatever their political beliefs, making that statement.
I certainly wouldn’t! I actually tend to operate with the exact opposite assumption.
And what did the study recommend?
And what has been my position in this discussion? The same.