|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Idiotic or Genius? | |||
| Idiotic |
   
|
14 | 93.33% |
| Genius |
  
|
1 | 6.67% |
| Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-30-2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
The Trans-fat argument bugs me because there is no value out of trans-fats. Banning them is perfectly reasonable to me. Something like marijuana is different to me because it is valuable to some people. What good comes from trans-fats? [/ QUOTE ] If they have no benefit, then why would anyone voluntarily choose them over the alternative? Seems to be there is a benefit, you just couldn't wrap your mind around it. 
|
|
#2
12-01-2007, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
If they have no benefit, then why would anyone voluntarily choose them over the alternative? Seems to be there is a benefit, you just couldn't wrap your mind around it. [/ QUOTE ] honestly, transfats might be somewhat unique in that they have no benefit to the consumer, but only informed consumers *who have a choice* can alter things. add to that that t.f. benefit the producers greatly, and it's easy to see why it's hard to change. for one thing, most consumers are not informed. they're stupid. I mean, leaded gasoline is golden compared to transfats. leaded gas is way better for engines than unleaded. the only benefit of transfats if that people are sold older boxed food instead of newer boxed food. but the bottom line is that probably about 10% of informed and active consumers want transfats out, the other 90% dont know dont care, and the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm.
|
|
#3
12-01-2007, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
honestly, transfats might be somewhat unique in that they have no benefit to the consumer [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] t.f. benefit the producers greatly ... the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm. [/ QUOTE ] Benefits to the producer do not result in benefits to the consumer? When Best Buy finds a solution that cuts shrinkage costs, this doesn't have a positive effect on me, as someone who shops at that store?
|
|
#4
12-01-2007, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
Benefits to the producer do not result in benefits to the consumer? When Best Buy finds a solution that cuts shrinkage costs, this doesn't have a positive effect on me, as someone who shops at that store? [/ QUOTE ] well, when doritos or something goes no transfats, does the price go up? well there you go. I mean doping bulk milk tanks with penicillin greatly benefits the producer, and was widely done until recently. you like that? it benefits producer, shouldn't it benefit you?
|
|
#5
12-01-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
but the bottom line is that probably about 10% of informed and active consumers want transfats out, the other 90% dont know dont care, and the producers of course 100% want transfats in because transfats work way better with their manufactured industrial food paradigm. [/ QUOTE ] Which is why every day more and more products in stores proclaim the fact that they're trans-fat free without any government action.
|
|
#6
12-01-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Francisco goes after trans fats too
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why every day more and more products in stores proclaim the fact that they're trans-fat free without any government action. [/ QUOTE ] yeah, the 10% is having an effect. twenty years ago it was 1%.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
