Re: oreos/no longer about oreos

[Guest guest]

Theresa-

>So,

>would it be any more " responsible " to offer them a false sanctuary in

>being free

>from hydrogenated oils.

It wouldn't be a false sanctuary, because the only claim would be the

removal of a toxic substance from the food supply and therefore an

improvement -- not a perfection -- of those foods which previously used

that substance.

Really, all this disagreement comes down to one question: should people be

allowed to sell anything as food -- and I mean literally anything -- with

no safety regulations at all and no requirement that the substances called

" food " actually be real food, or should there be some kind of regulation to

make sure that ingredients are honestly and accurately listed, that poisons

are kept out, and so on. As soon as you accept even the most minimal of

regulation, hydrogenated oil fails the test and must be banned. Current

science is overwhelmingly strong on this point. It simply has no place in

the food supply. But if you feel the FDA (or any other hypothetical

governmental body) has no business banning HO, then your position requires

that there be no FDA, no standards, no truth in labeling -- no labels at

all if corporations don't want to label things. And while you're free to

take that ultimate libertarian position to its logical extremist

conclusion, I don't think very many people will join you on your trek to

the fringe.

>Well, unfortunately one of the consequences of the slippery slope, ban this,

>prohibit that style of governing, and forcing one to follow another's " right "

>way of living and thinking by removing the freedom to choose for oneself is

>that it will undoubtedly come to the point of another American revolution.

And as I said, I find it unsurprising that the threat of violence has been

raised -- now by two separate people -- in response to the idea that

poisons should be banned from the food supply.

-

[Guest guest]

Theresa-

>but merely pointing out that

>switching from HO's to saturated fat in these instances of processed or

>fast-food

>consumption will not solve health issues.

Actually, it will solve health problems -- many health problems. It just

won't solve all of them. It won't even solve most of them, but it would

make legions of people healthier and it would eliminate some health

problems. To insist otherwise is to ignore the evidence because it doesn't

square with your politics.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

see comments below

On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:32:11 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Really, all this disagreement comes down to one question: should people be

> allowed to sell anything as food -- and I mean literally anything -- with

> no safety regulations at all and no requirement that the substances called

> " food " actually be real food, or should there be some kind of regulation to

> make sure that ingredients are honestly and accurately listed, that poisons

> are kept out, and so on. As soon as you accept even the most minimal of

> regulation, hydrogenated oil fails the test and must be banned. Current

> science is overwhelmingly strong on this point. It simply has no place in

> the food supply. But if you feel the FDA (or any other hypothetical

> governmental body) has no business banning HO, then your position requires

> that there be no FDA, no standards, no truth in labeling -- no labels at

> all if corporations don't want to label things. And while you're free to

> take that ultimate libertarian position to its logical extremist

> conclusion, I don't think very many people will join you on your trek to

> the fringe.

Whew! Where does one begin with such rhetoric? Just some highlights.

First, the fringe as you call it was the position this country was

founded on and existed for a good period of time. So the hyperbole is

fallacious though a good argumentative tool.

Second, all the alphabet agencies are indeed unconstitutional, whether

or not you agree that such should be the case.

Third, your idea of gov't as saviour is tired and old. If tomorrow there

was no FDA a bunch of us would find it infinitely easier to eat our

desired foods, like raw dairy, without becoming pseudo criminals or

having to find very creative ways of getting around the gov't bans. You may

be aware of this, but the FDA came into being for political

purposes, not the health of Americans.

We are not all dupes or stupid. Without a food safety net no doubt more

people would take seriously the responsibility for what they buy and eat.

And if they don't its not for gov't to *force* them to do otherwise.

Besides, people are much smarter in the marketplace than they are in the

voting booth: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1224

Not only that but there would be a proliferation of third party groups,

with concerns like yours, attempting to verify the substance of food

stuffs, and would let us know if in fact a particular company was

playing fast and loose with labeling, language, ingredients, etc. Even

if a third party told us that company xxx won't reveal what they do,

that is still useful info, and we can chose to spend our dollars

elsewhere. this in fact already occurs in the marketplace.

Further there would be many market incentives for a company to openly

submit to such verification, and insure an honest process, but I won't

go into that here.

So your idea that if we were without our gov't brothers/sisters " protecting " us,

we

would all be duck soup, if just more of the nanny state mentality I was

objecting too in my original response to .

Perhaps it is difficult for you to perceive that there are market

solutions to these issues, but there are serious minded people who

are quite at odds with your position

>

> >Well, unfortunately one of the consequences of the slippery slope, ban this,

> >prohibit that style of governing, and forcing one to follow another's " right "

> >way of living and thinking by removing the freedom to choose for oneself is

> >that it will undoubtedly come to the point of another American revolution.

>

> And as I said, I find it unsurprising that the threat of violence has been

> raised -- now by two separate people -- in response to the idea that

> poisons should be banned from the food supply.

Violence/aggression is forcing someone to do something against their

will. Remember you said you were disheartened by the references to " armed

resistance? " Well resistance implies that you are resisting something in

the first place, in this case the initial violence/aggression done

against your freedom to chose, and enforced, ultimately, at the point

of a gun, by our protectors in gov't.

While I'm all for ridding our food supply of non-foods, and would/have taken

part in such campaigns, I will forever

be an implacable ideological enemy of those who by aggression/coercion want to

force their nutritional ideology on others.

[Guest guest]

Forwarded by slethnobotanist@...

------------------ Re: Re: oreos/no longer about oreos

----

Hi ,

see comments below

On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:32:11 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Really, all this disagreement comes down to one question: should people be

> allowed to sell anything as food -- and I mean literally anything -- with

> no safety regulations at all and no requirement that the substances called

> " food " actually be real food, or should there be some kind of regulation to

> make sure that ingredients are honestly and accurately listed, that poisons

> are kept out, and so on. As soon as you accept even the most minimal of

> regulation, hydrogenated oil fails the test and must be banned. Current

> science is overwhelmingly strong on this point. It simply has no place in

> the food supply. But if you feel the FDA (or any other hypothetical

> governmental body) has no business banning HO, then your position requires

> that there be no FDA, no standards, no truth in labeling -- no labels at

> all if corporations don't want to label things. And while you're free to

> take that ultimate libertarian position to its logical extremist

> conclusion, I don't think very many people will join you on your trek to

> the fringe.

Whew! Where does one begin with such rhetoric? Just some highlights.

First, the fringe as you call it was the position this country was

founded on and existed for a good period of time. So the hyperbole is

fallacious though a good argumentative tool.

Second, all the alphabet agencies are indeed unconstitutional, whether

or not you agree that such should be the case.

Third, your idea of gov't as saviour is tired and old. If tomorrow there

was no FDA a bunch of us would find it infinitely easier to eat our

desired foods, like raw dairy, without becoming pseudo criminals or

having to find very creative ways of getting around the gov't bans. You may

be aware of this, but the FDA came into being for political

purposes, not the health of Americans.

We are not all dupes or stupid. Without a food safety net no doubt more

people would take seriously the responsibility for what they buy and eat.

And if they don't its not for gov't to *force* them to do otherwise.

Besides, people are much smarter in the marketplace than they are in the

voting booth: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1224

Not only that but there would be a proliferation of third party groups,

with concerns like yours, attempting to verify the substance of food

stuffs, and would let us know if in fact a particular company was

playing fast and loose with labeling, language, ingredients, etc. Even

if a third party told us that company xxx won't reveal what they do,

that is still useful info, and we can chose to spend our dollars

elsewhere. this in fact already occurs in the marketplace.

Further there would be many market incentives for a company to openly

submit to such verification, and insure an honest process, but I won't

go into that here.

So your idea that if we were without our gov't brothers/sisters " protecting " us,

we

would all be duck soup, if just more of the nanny state mentality I was

objecting too in my original response to .

Perhaps it is difficult for you to believe that there are market

solutions to these issues, but there are serious minded people who

are quite at odds with your position

>

> >Well, unfortunately one of the consequences of the slippery slope, ban this,

> >prohibit that style of governing, and forcing one to follow another's " right "

> >way of living and thinking by removing the freedom to choose for oneself is

> >that it will undoubtedly come to the point of another American revolution.

>

> And as I said, I find it unsurprising that the threat of violence has been

> raised -- now by two separate people -- in response to the idea that

> poisons should be banned from the food supply.

Violence/aggression is forcing someone to do something against their

will. Remember you said you were disheartened by the references to " armed

resistance? " Well resistance implies that you are resisting something in

the first place, in this case the initial violence/aggression done

against your freedom to chose, and enforced, ultimately, at the point

of a gun, by our protectors in gov't.

While I'm all for ridding our food supply of non-foods, and would/have taken

part in such campaigns, I will forever

be an implacable ideological enemy of those who by aggression/coercion want to

force their nutritional ideology on others.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/2/03 9:26:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jzbozzi@...

writes:

> Some vegetarians want nothing more than to make eating meat

> illegal. They think it will not only improve health but also save

> the planet!

Indeed, like the vegan terrorists who have bombed several meat packing plants

in the last five years or so?

Chris

[Guest guest]

YES, no food regulations. For example, I am sure 99% of the country

is pro pasteurization. A lot of people think we are crazy and are

going to kill ourselves and our kids with un-pasteurized milk. For

God's sake, my own family thinks this. And they are doctors, you

know, the people who know a lot more than us about health and who

get to create the regulations what tell us what we can eat.

Some vegetarians want nothing more than to make eating meat

illegal. They think it will not only improve health but also save

the planet! Vegetarians have A LOT more power and influence than

us. Some people would love to make eating saturated fat illegal.

They are well intentioned, and have lots of " science " to back them

up, but they are WRONG.

Regulators want to ban some of the supplements I take, because one

guy died from ephedra. Of course I am sure drug company money has

nothing to do with this. This is what regulation always turns

into. Its mob rule, its corporate rule, its do-gooder rule. Let

us be FREE to choose our own foods. We on this board probably

understand this more than most people. We are a MINORITY. we bear

the burden of all this stupid regulation because the majority don't

agree with us. I have to drive 2 hours one way just to get my

milk! This is crazy.

Of course it will not be a perfect world if people are free to

choose whatever they want to eat. But I have much faith that if

people were free, it would result in a much better situation than we

have now.

Bottom line. There are only two people who can tell me what to eat

and what not to eat. Me and God. Period. and, maybe my mom.

>

>

> > Really, all this disagreement comes down to one question: should

people be

> > allowed to sell anything as food -- and I mean literally

anything -- with

> > no safety regulations at all and no requirement that the

substances called

> > " food " actually be real food, or should there be some kind of

regulation to

> > make sure that ingredients are honestly and accurately listed,

that poisons

> > are kept out, and so on.