The Politics of the F.D.A. 238
A fight over posting calorie counts for popcorn is just one example of the clash between the White House and the agency charged with protecting public health. Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, the F.D.A. commissioner, was forced to scrap plans to have calorie counts posted for foods served in movie theaters and on airplanes after a phone call from the White House deputy chief of staff in 2010. From the article: "White House officials describe
their disagreements with the F.D.A. as part of the normal, constructive give-and-take over policy that has never undermined the agency’s mission.
'Under President Obama’s leadership, the Food and Drug Administration has new authority and resources to help stop kids from smoking, protect our food supply and approve more affordable prescription drugs,' said the White House press secretary, Jay Carney.
The administration also views the agency’s hostility to its oversight as hopelessly naïve, given a 24-hour news cycle and a ferocious political environment that punishes any misstep.
'They want a world that doesn’t exist anymore,' an administration official said."
...and WTF is the tech angle here? (Score:2, Troll)
...and WTF is the tech angle here?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...and WTF is the tech angle here?
They had a phone call!
Re: (Score:2)
*golf clap*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, an English website run in the US that doesn't explicitly say it's internationally-focused is US focused?
Cry some more.
Re: (Score:2)
/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker.
If you don't understand how a major conflict between science and politics is both News For Nerds and Stuff That Matters, please turn in your nerd card immediately, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
You eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's ambiguous, due to the idiotic convention that a calorie and a Calorie are a factor of 1000 different, and the GP used Calorie as the first word of a sentence, which would be capitalized regardless. 1 Cal = 1 kcal = 1000 cal
Re: (Score:3)
...and WTF is the tech angle here?
The technical angle is that the FDA's edicts are not science-based. We got the food pyramid conflating fats and sweets and telling us to eat rafts of carbohydrates which are addictive, make you fat, raise your "bad" cholesterol score, and cause heart disease, on the back of the NIH spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money trying to prove that eating fat was bad for you and failing. Now they want us to believe they're the right people to tell us what we should be putting into our bodies today. Bull S
But... (Score:5, Interesting)
...what in the world would the downside of having the energy content for movie snacks posted? It's not as if it would be prohibitely difficult or expensive to calculate for the vendors. Even McDonalds are doing it, and their meals are a lot more complex than "1 part dried corn, 1 part oil". The only possible reason is that people might not buy as much of it if they realised how fat it made them. But boosting your sales based on a lack of health information seems rather evil, and surely isn't something that movie theaters would do, right?
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The article implies (yes I know, that would require actually reading it and not having knee jerk reactions like the dumb ass AC's above) not posting the nutrition content has more to do with the fact a movie theater and/or airplane aren't regular eating establishments, like say an actual restaurant. (article: "the administration has not made a final decision about what food establishments will be covered.")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The *FACT* is, that nobody actually ordering said popcorn really cares.
The way you capitalize really sells your point well...
Some people own things like the the kill-o-watt wall meter because they want to know things. The establishment could post on something saying what the given nutritional values were, it isn't like they don't have the most insane markup of any nontraditional food court. Like the parent said it would not be difficult or expensive. Plus some people are generally swayed by raw empiricism. Finding out how horrible the toppings are, and how small the serving s
Re: (Score:2)
What would happen if a bucket of popcorn reported the following nutritional data:
1200 Calories
1500 mg sodium
60 grams saturated fat (more than 2 Big Macs, from the coconut oil)
Do you think theater owners might object? Do you think parents might object?
THAT's the downside of posting the nutrients.
Popcorn Calorie Bomb [webmd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It is depressing how much stuff is not being done in Washington because of how it would play out on the nation's most watched news channel. I firmly believe that the hyper scrutiny of the 24 hour news cycle is the primary cause behind the total partisan gridlock in Congre
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama’s chief health adviser, thought the requirement was unnecessary and would probably be lampooned on Fox News...
They're afraid of what Fox and Limbaugh will say? Actually this is a valid concern; would a person who went up to the snack bar in a theater really be influenced to not buy a box because a sign says it contains 300 calories? Maybe there are more important things for the FDA to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Any of the butter flavored ones are LOADED with trans fat.
I buy the unflavored popcorn and add my own melted butter at smaller dosages - tastes much better, the dairy product has zero trans fat, and you can don't need the ridiculous amount that is packaged with the buttered ones.
Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have an unimpinged right to choose if you're prevented from getting all the facts, fuckwit. This is an attempt to let consumers have the facts SO THEY CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are *not* entitled to your own facts.
Re: (Score:2)
"You are entitled to your own opinions"
Not in any professional world I know of that requires licensing.
Example: Medicine. If you're not qualified to give medical advice, you're not entitled to any opinion. You don't even have the title in the first place which would give you legal authority to that opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a word you should understand; it's called "context".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, right, everyone's got Internet access and smartphones.
Don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you know what they're actually putting in it. Are they using real butter or a substitute? Which substitute? Was it popped in oil? What sort of oil? etc....
Re: (Score:3)
That might have been the case a few decades ago but, nowadays, it is quite easy to check beforehand. Most chains tend to have the information online. If they don't you're free to complain and choose not to patronize them. I for one do not go to any restaurant that doesn't post a full list of allergens on their website because I don't want accidentally find out that there was something I can't eat in the food (trip to the ER? Not thank you!).
Now, I don't think it's that big a deal if restaurants were mandate
Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose (Score:4, Insightful)
A free market only works if the consumer is making informed decisions about what they are buying. Adding calorie/nutrition information to food products gives them that information. Publishing reports about Foxconn workers committing suicides also helps consumers be informed.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone is preventing pressure groups from publishing reports about the nutritional contents of food. The question is whether Apple should be mandated to disclose information about working conditions and whether consumers should be shown pictures of their device being assembled in China.
My understanding is that, if consumers are really concerned about nutrition, then they will tend to get that information. Nowadays, most places already provide this information and use it as a selling point (you
Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose (Score:5, Informative)
how can the choice be truly free if you don't have access to information about your choice? And how is legislating access to information impinging on your freedom? You can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket if you so choose, nobody is forcing you to look at the nutritional information label.
It's just like if all food also had a carbon impact value as part of its labeling, you could still easily decide to buy fresh fruit from out of season imported from halfway around the world, or buy that coffee table you like so much made from rainforest wood, you just would be fully aware of the ramifications of your choice.
Or are you saying that having the information available infringes your right to be ignorant? in that case do you really believe your choice is free when you don't know if it's right/wrong for you/society (regardless if you want to choose right or wrong)? and what about the right of people that actually *do* want to make informed choices and so need the carbon/environmental/calorie data, shouldn't their rights be protected?
Re: (Score:2)
You can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket if you so choose, nobody is forcing you to look at the nutritional information label.
More importantly: you can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket even if you do choose to look at the nutritional information.
(As a side note, totally irrelevant to anything you said, all of which I basically agree with: please learn what a "comma splice" is and how to avoid it.)
Ignorance is essential to true decision making (Score:3)
It seems to me that ignorance is inversely proportional to the ability to make a conscious, self-determined choice. The more information I have about a given set of options, the less I'm able to make a choice based solely on my own preferences. Instead, I'm hampered by the knowledge that one particular option is better for me than others as determined by sources outside my control, and therefore (perhaps against my personal inclination) I'm going to lean towards the option that is better for me.
In this p
Re: (Score:3)
At this point I think he's trolling. Nobody's that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody takes away the choice from you. Quite the opposite: you are given an opportunity to make informed decision.
Say you have two different buckets of popcorn.
In one case they just look different (buckets, not popcorn). The only way for you to choose is to either go for the prettier bucket or try both and choose based on taste.
In another case both buckets have additional info like nutrition info and ingredients. So now, you can still choose prettier bucket or try both and choose based on taste. However, n
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're not actually choosing anything. You're simply sorting for the optimal combination to meet a given need, given the input of data. You're going to use that nutritional information, combined with the ambient data you've already collected and processed about what's healthy for you and what isn't, and you're going to arrive at the best, most optimal product that balances your desire against the mandate to remain healthy.
If you took away all that information and were left with the two buckets, t
Re: (Score:3)
"But it's the issue that the "Government" is forcing businesses to reveal calorie count in the name of trying to create a more healthy society, and thus subtly impinging on a person's ability to make a choice for good or ill."
The government forcing businesses to make information available is impinging on someone's ability to make an informed choice?
I can't tell if you a) are supremely ironic and also supremely subtle b) don't read what you write or c) normally write for Fox news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. People who live longer cost the state a lot more. Sure there may be more short term costs, but long term it's a total win when you consider what we spend on Medicare and Social Security
HINT: That's appro
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree. People who live longer cost the state a lot more.
DEATH AT BIRTH! It's the only way to be maximally efficient! (Thanks Jonathan Swift.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not being given any more of a choice to sin (eat popcorn) or not (eat . . . less popcorn?) if the FDA doesn't have the theater print nutrition facts on the popcorn bag. There's nothing inherently good or bad about nutrition facts. Unless you believe that they should be removed from ALL food products, your argument is completely invalid.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud you for your efforts to get your weight under con
Re: (Score:2)
>I wish calorie information was on all foods, everywhere
Ditto. There's absolutely no reason that big businesses can't create calorie counts for all of their foods. (Small businesses, yes, it can be expensive.)
My main gripe is that they don't list caffeine content on foods. Mormons want to avoid it, college students want to ingest more of it. Everyone has an interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. People look at calorie values all the time, if they're available. Some people will choose not to buy popcorn, or buy less, if they know the ridiculous number of calories that are actually in movie theatre popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
You are eating the wrong lobster. I don't like butter at all and use pretty much none on my lobster; I find lobster delicious.
I think people who slather butter on lobster are criminals who deserve really cheap lobster since they will not even taste anything.
Re: (Score:3)
STRAWMAN SIGHTED.
Criticism of the current administration can be made regardless of your political persuasion.
See, this is why I can't take the you seriously, because fucking drama queens like you don't understand why having multiple logical fallacies in one screed is bad.
Know thyself.
Re: (Score:2)
How very schoolyard of you. You've ignored my argument and chosen to throw back "NO YOU" like a first-grader.
Your mother must be proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
I did not just say "NUH UH YOU" - I explained what was wrong with your post, which is more than what you did for the AC. What's more, I didn't try to co-opt your misstep to match my world view, nor insult a (loosely defined) group that I perceive you to be associated with (even though I'd have much more evidence to make that association then you did with the AC).
And your reply is that I'm the childish one, and try (if you can call it that) to invoke emotion... so that, what, I might concede for guilt t
More of the MPAA's doing? (Score:2)
Obviously, as seen in other issues (i.e. ACTA) the MPAA has the president in their pocket. Isn't it true that movie theaters make all their money on concessions, because they give nearly all of the money from ticket sales to the studios? If you post calories then people buy less popcorn, so you reduce concession sales. If the movie theaters can't stay in business selling concessions, will more of the ticket price have to be kept by the theater, thus reducing the profits of the MPAA members?
Re: (Score:2)
If you post calories then people buy less popcorn, so you reduce concession sales.
[Citation needed]
As far as I can tell, most of the theater-going public seems to consider the purchase of popcorn a mandatory part of the theater experience.
Proposal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory nutrient labelling for dirt. Won't anyone think of the children with pica [wikipedia.org]?
And this is why people like Colbert have an assured job.
Because idiots like you will always take it to an extreme over putting a label of numbers onto some object. As if more consumer awareness is bad.
FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist (Score:5, Interesting)
There are medical researchers finding that high sugar intake fosters cancer growth, finding this to be particularly evident in those who have cancer. Will the FDA ever label sugar appropriately? Nope. There's even less a chance they'll do this with corn syrup, given the corn lobbyists.
Speaking of corn, imagine having a corn allergy. Actually, it's not necessarily corn per se, but expressions of certain genetic modifications and some of the molds that grow on corn. But basically every processed food has corn derivatives in it. You name it, it's derived from corn. Citric acid (a common preservative used in just about everything), ascorbic acid, microcrystaline cellulose, xanthan gum (a common thickener, derived from an organism grown on corn), fructose, dextrose, "natural flavors", MSG, etc. And they're added to everything from table salt to orange juice. (Why the hell they would need to add corn-derived citric acid to orange juice beats the hell out of me.) And if you search the web for "corn allergy", you'll get the impression that a corn allergy isn't incredibly rare, and there are communities of people who work really hard to figure out which food products aren't treated with corn products. Imagine being unable to buy CHICKEN without being at risk. That's right, almost all chicken sold in grocery stores has corn-based additives. A corn allergy may be rare, but the sheer ubiquity of corn products makes it so that absolutely everyone with a corn allergy in the U.S. will suffer. Nevertheless, the FDA flatly refuses to even create a legal definition of corn, let alone require products to mention it on the label. Even organic farmers spray their produce with corn derivatives as a sort of non-toxic enrivonmentally friendly pest deterrent.
If you have a corn allergy, you are royally fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a corn allergy, you are royally fucked.
Thank you, government subsidies, for unintended consequences. (I gave up HFCS years ago, and lost over 50 pounds.)
Attack of the killer labels (Score:2)
We can stand around and argue the merits of labeling requirements and food regulation all day long. There are an endless series of tradeoffs I don't much know shit about and therefore will refrain from offering an opinion.
What is not acceptable about the FDA are labeling requirements that allow knowingly factually incorrect information to be stamped on food labels. Tweaking serving size so that trans fat content is below the .5 threshold and therefore always reads zero should in my view be considered a cri
They Also Need To Label Sodium (Score:2)
Hey White House (Score:3)
The A in FDA stands for Administration. If you do not want them to administer the areas of food and drugs, just shut them down already.
Nice turn of phrase. (Score:2)
"Give and take over". What a wonderful description.
FDA's war (Score:2)
The RDAs are whacked out lies in many cases. This clearly true for vitamin C and D3, probably many more including several "near vitamins".
Dear Obama Admin (Score:3)
'They want a world that doesn’t exist anymore,'
No, they want a world that isn't this neoliberal war-mongering kleptocracy cooked up by BushCo and cheerfully continued by the Obama Admin. You know -a world where there's a sense of common decency and a vibrant social contract between people, and not this dog-eat-dog psychopathic me-first Randian horsecrap we've been force fed since Reagan.
Re:But remember kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who didn't read the article, it's not so much anti science as pro-politics. Making sure the message is not negative: "The Bush administration repeatedly stopped the FDA from issuing rules to prevent contamination of eggs, produce and other foods, though both industry and consumer groups agreed they were needed as the death toll rose from such incidents. Mr. Bushâ(TM)s health department also demanded that it approve all agency press releases.
Much of the agencyâ(TM)s staff assumed that the Obama administration would restore the agencyâ(TM)s independence. [But] a decision that had nothing to do with the F.D.A. proved the turning point in the agencyâ(TM)s relationship with the White House. In the midst of the bitter 2009 battle to pass a law to provide health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, the United States Preventive Services Task Force announced in November that most women should not get routine mammograms until age 50 because the risks of the X-ray screens and surgical biopsies that often follow outweighed the benefits in younger women.
Although the task force did not consider cost in its analysis, Republicans charged that its recommendation was the start of health care rationing, an accusation given prominent play on Fox News.
"That scared the bejesus out of everybody," a top F.D.A. official said. The Obama administration became extremely risk averse, fearing further controversies might jeopardize the passage of health care reform, agency and administration officials said. It refused many interview requests for agency officials and scientists until the health law passed.
"To the career people, that was disappointing. Employees here waited eight long years for deliverance that didnâ(TM)t come."
Re: (Score:2)
As a Republican, my objection wasn't that the recommendation that "most women should not get routine mammograms until age 50" would leads to "the start of health care rationing", but rather that it would lead to the Government deciding what healthcare services were appropriate, and controlling access to them.
The difference would be between 'rationing' and 'access'. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Under rationing, I might be denied knee surgery because I was too young, the Government's assessment
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the TPA (third party administrator, the folks that actually are contracted to do the preauthorizations) are really behind, like years, that's FUD. A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
No Medicare isn't perfect, it's top heavy, slow and confusing. However private insurers aren't exactly known for timeliness
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
There will always be "one day" where waiting "one more day" will put the patient into a state they cannot recover from (or be recovered from). Therefore, "a couple of months isn't going to change things" is not an accurate statement. And appeals mean nothing when you're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you get too excited about choosing a position about how to manage healthcare costs under various plans, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to sp
Re: (Score:3)
Same in the UK. You can get a pap smear within a day as well, as long as you're willing to go private. You'd have to pay for it, unless you have insurance , but you'd still get your pap smear. It'll cost you about £200 (~$320) and they also measure your cholesterol, perform a breast exam, etc.
At any rate, what does your anecdote prove? That someone, somewhere, might have been harmed by rationing? You can find such horror stories in all systems. I'm sure I can find someone in the US who was concerned a
Re:But remember kids... (Score:5, Informative)
BTW what's wrong with movie popcorn that it needs a label? I eat popcorn almost every day, and it's only ~300 calories. (I guess the theater dobs-on lots of butter.) Such a regulation would increase cost though. And they aren't in the best financial health, what with competition from HDTV and home viewing.
Another interesting quote from the article:
"In February 2011, the F.D.A. approved an application from KV Pharmaceutical to sell 17P, a decades-old drug used to prevent premature births. Since KVâ(TM)s version, called Makena, was the only one officially approved, the F.D.A. would normally have banned the sale of cheaper unapproved ones. To the agency, the only issue was that KVâ(TM)s drug offered guaranteed safety while those made by pharmacists were riskier.
"For years, pharmacists had been making unapproved versions of this injectable form of progesterone for $200 to $400 for a 20-week course. Though F.D.A. officials worried about repeated instances over the years when other pharmacy-made drugs had been found to lack potency or be contaminated with deadly bacteria.
"Once it had won F.D.A. approval, KV announced its price â" $30,000 for a 20-week treatment, a hundredfold increase. Administration officials then stepped in to halt any effort to ban pharmacy-made versions, citing the need to check an exorbitant price increase from a drug company that suddenly found itself with a monopoly, an increase that could burden women who needed the drug. The administration instructed the F.D.A. to issue a press release stating that, "at this time and under this unique situation, F.D.A. does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies" that make unapproved versions of 17P. An administration official said that the health department and the F.D.A. worked together on the 17P issue and that the White House was not involved. "The notion that the statement or the action was somehow forced down F.D.A.â(TM)s throat isnâ(TM)t accurate," the administration official said. "F.D.A. officials said they had often been wrongly accused of considering price in drug approval deliberations and had always been able to reply that price was never a factor.
"We canâ(TM)t say that anymore," a top F.D.A. official said unhappily. Four months later, the White House approved a requirement that sunscreens protect equally against two kinds of the sunâ(TM)s radiation, UVB and UVA, to earn the coveted designation of offering broad spectrum protection.
"Top F.D.A. officials wanted to prohibit lotions with sun protection factors, or SPFs, of less than 15 from being called sunscreens because they do not protect against cancer or skin aging, while the administration insisted they could still be called sunscreens as long as they carried a label that said such lotions were ineffective."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you want to get really technical, FDA-style Nutrition labels are mostly white, so you'd probably end up saving ink over the typically colorful design that label replaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not butter.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps if it had a label we could answer this question.
Re:But remember kids... (Score:4, Informative)
> BTW what's wrong with movie popcorn that it needs a label?
Because some theaters use really bad oils to save money.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/11/19/popcorn-movie-theatre-salt-fat.html [www.cbc.ca]
Money quote: "You can get one kind of popcorn with three grams of saturated fat and roughly the same size at another theatre with 38 grams of saturated fat. That's just a phenomenal difference," said Bill Jeffery of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest in Ottawa. "These are things that you can't tell by tasting."
Re:Broadly true. (Score:5, Funny)
Great now we've got calorie denialists. Awesome.
Re:Broadly true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Calorie denialism is just another symptom of the Republicans needing to disagree with the Other at every turn.
Re: (Score:3)
Denial Denialism?
Where does that get fun?
The Nile De-nihilism (Score:4, Funny)
Denial Denialism?
Where does that get fun?
When you turn it into the Nile De-nihilism and accidentally start a literary movement about re-instantiating a dried-up river in a post-apocalyptic world?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Jesus how do the global warming denialists do that? I think my IQ dropped a few points just thinking that phrase.
Re:Broadly true. (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Maher is an outright germ theory denier [rationalwiki.org]. Most of the Republican party denies evolution and global warming. The Democrats are slightly better, in my opinion, but they've still got a bunch of flakes who have elevated a good idea (organic food) into some kind of pseudo-religion. My sister is like that. She thinks that organic food has magical properties that make it somehow better than any other food. She also refuses to give her kids vaccines. It's funny, because she'll rant about how anti-science the Republicans are in one breath, then rant about some bizarre anti-vaccine conspiracy theory in the next.
People are hypocritical, ignorant morons. That includes you, me, and everyone else. Thinking that you're immune to this kind of cognitive bias is yet another form of cognitive bias [wikipedia.org] (known as bias blind spot [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but if you make an effort to consistently consider the broader view with an even hand, and don't take every opportunity to assert your moral/ethical/intellectual/ideological "truth" at the expense of others, well, you just don't get that same sense of self righteousness that you're entitled to.
That is, unless you can extract self righteousness from the position of being more even handed and trying to remove personal bias. But that doesn't come with the snarky one-liners that make it so fun. Sound the
Re: (Score:2)
Organic food /is/ better, and here's why: no pesticide residues going into your body.
Re:Broadly true. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html [berkeley.edu]
Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.
So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.
Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).
ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.
Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.
This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.
Re:Broadly true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bill Maher's like the left-wing Rush Limbaugh from what I understand.
Except people actually listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Re: (Score:2)
And believe him, even.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Maher is a bit of an odd case, because he's a self-professed Libertarian, yet some of his opinions border on European-style Social Democracy. Depending on the issue, he can range from center-left to center-right. Ever since the GWB presidency, he's moved further and further to the left, however. He's actually fairly intelligent, quite funny, and an unrepentant douchebag. For years, I was willing to give him a pass on his douchebaggery, because I thought he was funny. Recently, however, he's steppe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well right now calories and other nutrition information are displayed on most packaged foods and I'd expect some margin for error is allowed...doesn't seem to cause too much trouble.
If anyone thought Solyndra was going to resolve "the environmental problems" they're an idiot. The Solyndra bailout was stupid at best, I won't deny that. It might have made some sense if tariffs had been put on imported solar panels *before* trying to bail out a company that was losing money at an alarming rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Broadly true. (Score:4, Informative)
You've obviously never worked at a job where you face and have to deal with the general public.
Growing up, and early in school, I worked as a busboy in restaurants, when old enough a waiter and bartender. I've also worked retails....and from those experiences, you basically understand that about 90% of the people out there are pretty much fucked in the head...stupid....idiots.
I don't say that lightly...but when you deal with the avg "joe" on a daily basis, it really just kills you to see the ignorance and just general lack of display of intelligence out there. This was pretty far back for me, and I have to imagine in this day in age....it is even worse.
As hard as it is to believe, yes...there are a LOT of people out there, that do not comprehend that eating McD burgers and fries multiple times a week (hell, multiple times a DAY), washing it down with full sugar cokes....and having Twinkies as snacks in between those meals...will kill them and make them fat.
Yes, there are a lot of them out there, that are that stupid.
I know I come off sounding very elitist when I mention things like this....but after working those jobs, and talking to others that have done the same for any significant length of time, you sadly have to admit it is true. And when you understand that, well, I just am not surprised that much anymore by any strange news report, or anything 'interesting' I come across while observing the common man in the street.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I partially agree with
Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on.
But I do think there are some that do completely disregard science (eg. Young Earth Creationists). I have been given the impression by the media that this is a significant part of the republican party, but who knows, it is the media we're talking about.
However I am curious as to what you mean by questionable science. Are you towing the standard "Climate Science isn't real science" line, or something more concrete than that?
I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, it's just I haven'
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on." - This is flatly untrue. Republicans deny or abuse science when science interferes with their pro-business agenda (the tobacco-cause-cancer and CO2-causes-global warming denial being a great examples thereof), or when they want it to say things it doesn't (like about fetal pain in early stages of pregnancy). Go read this book [waronscience.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You brought up tobacco. If it is so deadly and dangerous how come there hasn't been a complete ban of the product?
1. Any attempt to do so would make the current healthcare debate look like a snowball fight.
2. Any thinking person would realize that's an exercise in futility, much like the majority of the war on drugs.
Methane is 15x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, but there isn't any money in taxing cows so instead they are taxing carbon emissions because that is a much bigger tax base
Manmade emissions of CO2 are roughly 667x greater (330 million tonnes of methane vs. 220 billion tonnes of CO2) than manmade emissions of methane. Even at a 15:1 ratio in effectiveness, it's only about 2.25% of the effect. Clamping down on methane emissions would do absolutely fucking nothing compared to
Re: (Score:2)
You brought up tobacco. If it is so deadly and dangerous how come there hasn't been a complete ban of the product?
Probably the experience of Prohibition? On second thought, no -- It's clear we haven't learned anything from that.
In any event, opponents of smoking mostly have been contained to nibbling away at the edges when they can find an argument strong enough to overcome opposition -- blocking certain channels of advertising (save the children), limited bans in certain locations (2nd-hand smoke affecting non-consenting persons). The graphic-images-on-cartons move might have a shot, but is currently engaged in lega
Re: (Score:3)
Trouble is...it isn't just this...
I can understand the bans in public buildings, government buildings where people HAVE to go...but , how do they justify this in PRIVATE places like bars and restaurants, where no one holds a gun to your head to go work or be a patron there??
I don't get that one.
And hell, I'm trying to quit smoking now....doing well,and not having smoking at place IS a help to me not being tempted, but still....why can the govt. ban smok
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans distrust any science that disagrees with what they believe, and then call it politicized. Democrats do the same damn thing.
That being said, it seems a lot more disagrees with the republicans than democrats, and the republicans do seem to extrapolate to a lot of 'neutral' science in their mistrust.
And neither side is against big government. Disagreement only seems to be as to which part of the government should be bigger.
Re:Broadly true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy fuck, dude, wtf is wrong with posting calories in food? It's meaningless to me, as I have no weight problem (I have problems putting it on, not taking it off), but I know a lot of fatasses who could use all the help they can get shedding pounds.
Nobody's saying "fattening foods are illegal". What it is is simple education -- popcorn's not supposed to make you fat. But a whole bucketful of it swimming in trans fats? Hell yes a whole bucketful is fattening, print the "10,000 calories, 9,000 from trans fat" on the tub.
I'd like to see a truth in labeling law. I worked at a drive in theater when I was a teenager, and the "butter" for the popcorn was hydrogenated soybean oil. So someone thinks they're getting butter (caloric but good cholesterol) when they're raising their bad cholesterol.
Jesus H Christ, you want the freedom to rip me off and poison me? Typical right wing... corporate rights foremost, human beings' rights don't matter. I should have the right to know what I'm eating. Making you print the damned TRUTH about what you're selling is hardly something to get bent out of shape about.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear I've triggered Poe's law again :-(
I agree that the info should have been posted, but you can see why the Obama administration has worked against it, with the "disapproving Michelle Obama" photoshops already going around. It would have seriously irked right-wingers.
Re: (Score:3)
No true Scotsman
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)