Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → First trans-fat and now acrylamide
First trans-fat and now acrylamide
2008-08-02, 10:12 AM #1
When is the government going to stop telling us what to eat?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/02/BAFE1244HA.DTL
2008-08-02, 10:17 AM #2
What the bloody hell, we already had an acrylamide scare in Finland in freaking 2001 due to some Swedish study that was proven to be false at some point.

Geez.

Then again, the less potato chips/meat people eat, the MORE FOR ME. Ha!
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2008-08-02, 10:41 AM #3
Stop whining. It's for our own good.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-02, 10:41 AM #4
oh no food
2008-08-02, 11:05 AM #5
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Stop whining. It's for our own good.

Yes, I love being told what I can and cannot eat/do.

Land of the free.
D E A T H
2008-08-02, 11:11 AM #6
I don't see how this is "the government telling us what to eat". It's the government telling companies that make the food we eat what "bad stuff" they can't put into our food. We will likely eat those exact same foods, only now they will be better for our bodies and cost those companies a little more (as they generally add certain unhealthy things to cut costs or make consumers buy the foods more).

It's kind of ridiculous to be angry at the government for trying to regulate health and safety and cry "they're telling me what to do!" when firstly, it is telling big companies that you are likely not a part of their decision making process how to produce certain foods to a certain health regulation. Secondly, why would you want certain additives in your food that the gov't is trying to take out?

Now someone earlier in the thread said that this was proven to not be a problem for food, and if there is no sound reason to regulate that something be removed from food production, then there is no reason for it. But I doubt the government is trying to regulate the health of food to control people's lives, that's quite a stretch if you ask me.
2008-08-02, 11:22 AM #7
This isn't a matter of what companies can or can't add to their products. This is a matter of attempting to reduce a potentially-harmful substance that forms in the product in an unwanted manner while it is cooked.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2008-08-02, 11:37 AM #8
I'm surprised they haven't tried banning the Sun.. I mean, if you stay out in it for too long you'll get sunburn.. repeat over and over for years and you'll probably get skin cancer.. I mean it's bad for us so they should ban it completely...
"Nulla tenaci invia est via"
2008-08-02, 11:53 AM #9
Yeah, the sun being unnatural and all.
2008-08-02, 12:00 PM #10
Acrylamide is natural enough. You can make your own by heating a potato.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2008-08-02, 12:07 PM #11
With the sun? :tfti:
2008-08-02, 12:17 PM #12
I was thinking more "chuck a potato into a wildfire." :P
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2008-08-02, 12:27 PM #13
What the hell? Like FGR said, this was an issue several years ago (in fact I started a Massassi thread about this same thing regarding acrylamide back in the day), until it became a non-issue.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2008-08-02, 12:45 PM #14
What doesn't cause cancer these days?
2008-08-02, 12:54 PM #15
Originally posted by Anovis:
Yeah, the sun being unnatural and all.


Global warming is natural and we're sure as hell going to ban that.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-02, 12:59 PM #16
Banning a harmful preservative = yes.
Banning a normal result of cooking food = no.
2008-08-02, 1:10 PM #17
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Global warming is natural and we're sure as hell going to ban that.


Are we?
2008-08-02, 1:46 PM #18
Hell yeah!
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-08-02, 2:00 PM #19
Quote:
When are these food censor threads going to stop?


fixed.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-08-02, 5:51 PM #20
At least acrylamide sounds nasty. Trans-fat was such a cuddly-sounding thing to ban :(
2008-08-04, 12:07 AM #21
two words: Nanny State.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-08-04, 1:15 AM #22
Originally posted by Onimusha.:
fixed.
fixed what now?
Dreams of a dreamer from afar to a fardreamer.
2008-08-04, 6:28 AM #23
Originally posted by Wookie06:
Stop whining. It's for our own food.


.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

↑ Up to the top!