Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Judge Overturns Bloomberg’s Soda Ban, for Now

  1. #31

    Default

    Neither is dead.

    The 7 train extension may not open three or five years from now, but there's a chance it will open eventually.

    The large sugary drinks ban may be re-enacted legally by a vote of the City Council.

  2. #32

    Default

    Make up your mind -You are the one that made the comment...

    [QUOTE=EastMillinocket;447838]Add the soda ban and the 7-train extension to the list of Bloomberg-legacy projects that are dead in the water.

  3. #33

    Default

    OK, I concede.

  4. #34
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    This is so completely false. There is NO safe amount of trans fats, every little bit will cause damage to your arteries. The damage is reversible, fortunately, but a diet with regular hydrogenated / partially hydrogenated fats will inevitably lead to an early death
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Simplistic. Show me research support for this "every little bit" and how it fits in with the entire dietary and environmental picture.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    "A detriment to cardiovascular health" doesn't go to the proof of your statement.

    I'm sure the AHA has a laundry list of things that are detrimental to cardiovascular health, including what we're doing right now.

    Calling something a "poison" doesn't make it empirically the worst factor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    And how much is that?

    I call that "a little".

    Chances are, they set a guideline knowing that we get enough trans (or as much as we can tolerate) in a normal health diet, so additional is not smart to allow in their outlines. Merely "allowing" it, no matter how small the amount, makes it difficult to control. Easier to just say "no" and keep 90% of the people healthier even if 10% had it right from the start.
    well it's official, the FDA has banned adding trans fats in food, effective 3 years from now. To quote:

    "The agency ruled on Tuesday that partially hydrogenated oils, the source of trans fats, were no longer “generally recognized as safe.” That means companies would have to prove that such oils are safe to eat — a high hurdle, given that scientific literature overwhelmingly shows otherwise. The Institute of Medicine had concluded there was no safe level for consumption of them, a stance the F.D.A. cited in its reasoning."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/he...rans-fats.html

  5. #35

    Default

    Have you reviewed the entire thread?

    The OP was about the court overturning Bloomberg's soda ban.

    You were in agreement in post #2:
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Gecko
    Judge was right on point, this stupid law was completely arbitrary and made no sense. Dairy drinks with more calories is OK because milk is good for you? Yeah OK, good luck with that - a calorie is a calorie. But that's besides the point, the government shouldn't be in the business of telling you what you can and can not eat. I agreed with the trans fats ban (except its ignorance of naturally occurring trans fats) because that substance is a legitimate poison. But sugary soda isn't a poison, it's bad diet and it's not the city's job to force you to eat a certain way
    From my point of view, the discussion from that point was not about whether trans-fats are harmful or benign, but the way you characterized sugar (the main topic here) as a calorie, and trans-fat as a poison. You can regard both or neither as a poison, depending on how long you want to wait.

    I said there was no such thing as a sugar calorie; it was a unit of energy. What energy is unused gets stored as fat. I posted that dietary fat (including trans-fat) has been declining for decades, while sugar use has gone up significantly. And Americans have gotten fatter. Obesity is a major cause of hear disease.

    Over 610,000 people die from heart disease annually, 25% of all deaths. More than all forms of cancer combined.

    From the link you posted:
    Trans fats — a major contributor to heart disease in the United States — have already been substantially reduced in foods, but they still lurk in many popular products, including frostings, microwave popcorn, packaged pies, frozen pizzas, margarines and coffee creamers.

    The agency announced its plans to act in 2013 and has since addressed more than 6,000 public comments. The decision Tuesday was final and would effectively remove industrial trans fats from the American diet by 2018, a change that the agency has estimated could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year.
    While 7,000 is a lot of people, it's only 1.15% of the total number of deaths from hear disease. I'm not saying we should forget about 7.000 people, but your post #2 seems to be forgetting about 603,000.



    ETA: In #22, I posted a link that soda consumption has been decreasing, while water consumption is increasing. So where is this big increase in dietary sugar coming from?

    Google "hidden sugar in food."

    Just like trans-fat.

  6. #36
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I said there was no such thing as a sugar calorie; it was a unit of energy. What energy is unused gets stored as fat. I posted that dietary fat (including trans-fat) has been declining for decades, while sugar use has gone up significantly. And Americans have gotten fatter. Obesity is a major cause of hear disease.
    Yes, I read the whole thread (which is not about trans fats), but since I've known for a long time that trans fats were one of the most dangerous additives in food I felt it was relevant to mention it in context of government regulation of the food chain. To reduce the subject of trans fats to calories to be measured on the scale of weight gain is extremely naive and a great disservice to the discussion. Animal biology has not evolved to properly metabolize artificially hydrogenated fats which collect in the arterial walls and cause premature blockages leading to stroke, heart attack, and blood pressure complications.

    Trans fats are not even close to being in the same category as regular or even saturated fats, they are absolutely a poison by the popular understanding of that word and it's not a controversial position. There is, however, controversy over if obesity actually is or is not a cause of heart disease and/or of type 2 diabetes:

    http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/1...-109177c4e6ec&
    http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/2...ype-2-diabetes

  7. #37

    Default

    My argument is your minimizing the health risk of refined sugar (you seem to have made it a political statement) while counterpointing with the health risk of trans fat.

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Yes, I read the whole thread (which is not about trans fats), but since I've known for a long time that trans fats were one of the most dangerous additives in food I felt it was relevant to mention it in context of government regulation of the food chain.
    Can we agree that "the most dangerous additive in food" is directly related to the health problems they cause in the population? If so, the 7,000 deaths that may be attributed to trans-fat in the diet would cover Jan 1 to Jan 4. I would say that is statistically insignificant when measured against the health problems caused by heart disease (I haven't even touched on diabetes as a stand-alone problem).

    To reduce the subject of trans fats to calories to be measured on the scale of weight gain is extremely naive and a great disservice to the discussion.
    A common misconception of the problem as sugar > calories > weight gain. It's much more than that, and SM touched on it earlier in the thread.

    Animal biology has not evolved to properly metabolize artificially hydrogenated fats which collect in the arterial walls and cause premature blockages leading to stroke, heart attack, and blood pressure complications.
    It still goes back to numbers. 7,000 people is statistically insignificant when measured against the #1 cause of death in the US.

    Trans fats are not even close to being in the same category as regular or even saturated fats,
    I only mentioned fats to highlight that the amount of fats in the US diet has been dropping for decades, while sugar use has increased; I wasn't drawing a comparison between saturated fats and trans-fats.

    they are absolutely a poison by the popular understanding of that word and it's not a controversial position.
    I never said it was controversial, or that they should not be banned. You brought trans-fats into this discussion to minimize the health effects of refined sugar. That is my disagreement.

    It's more than too much sugar and you get fat. Some facts:

    1. Sugar is high in fructose, which can damage the liver the same way that alcohol does.

    2. Sugar is addictive.

    3. Sugar may be linked to cancer production and may effect cancer survival .

    4. 2013 study in the Journal of the American Heart Association displayed strong evidence that sugar can actually affect the pumping mechanism of your heart and could increase the risk for heart failure.

    5. Sugar can cause insulin resistance, a stepping stone towards metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

    6. Sugar is a preservative food additive in the form of corn syrup. There is sugar in items like bread.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristi...b_3658061.html
    http://authoritynutrition.com/10-dis...-sugar-is-bad/

    In the following link, sugar is described as a "poison." While I don't agree that term, I think the characterization is ironic.

    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that the average American consumes anywhere between 150 to 170 pounds of refined sugars in one year!

    Less than 100 years ago, the average intake of sugar was only about 4 pounds per person per year.
    http://bamboocorefitness.com/not-so-...gar-each-year/

    The recommended daily consumption of sugar by organizations such as the AHA and WHO is between 5 and 10 teaspoons.

    Pick your poison.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software