US Government Banning Donut Sprinkles

[Marnie]

That's right. Conservatives should be more concerned about winning hearts and minds than elections. It doesn't matter who is in office if the culture is liberal.

Yes, Nevada will elect a conservative, then another liberal. It's the way she swings.

[ayin jade]

First off, ban the FDA. Second, we are being micromanaged to death and I suspect we'll be reaching a tipping point sooner rather than later. Living in a micro-regulatory state is NOT what America is about and it's not what most Americans want. There's a lot of discontent in the heartland that is festering and growing and, from my lips to G-d's ears, a revolution is simmering.

 

 

The fda is quite necessary. It helped prevent the damage in the us from thalidomide that europe saw.

[missmuffet]

 

 

 

I must say that I am a big advocate for getting rid of all food with food coloring.Food coloring in really bad.It is in everything.I am trying my best to stay away from it as much as I can.

One of my cousin's daughter's made a red velvet cake about two years ago for Christmas.    She was putting red food coloring in the batter, but because the batter only turned pink she thought she didn't put in enough.  So she kept adding and adding and the batter was still pink (she didn't know that the cake would darken to red in the oven).   She ended up dumping a entire bottle of red food coloring and 1/4 of another bottle before giving up.

 

Instead of red velvet, it was more like a fire engine red and everyone thought it tasted funny.  I shudder to think of all the bad stuff in that cake.

 

Yes,and red is one of the worse.

 

 

There are various different red dyes. Not all of them are bad. You should specify which ones are the bad ones. Cochineal for instance is not one of the bad red food dyes. Nor is beet juice dye.

 

Beet juice dye is natural.Not an actual bad food dye.

http://www.doctoroz.com/article/food-dyes-are-they-safe

[ayin jade]

Cochineal is natural too. But they are both food dyes.

[Burning_Ember]

I have a question.  They want to ban trans fats right?  Why are cigarettes still legal?  If the government is playing nanny to everyone, by forcing food manufacturers to ban things that are unhealthy, why in the world would they keep cigarettes legal when they have no nutritional value, and contribute to lung cancer?  It is not like I don't already know the answer, but I am making a point.  If they could find a way to place a tax on trans fats, they would probably keep them legal. 

Because there are substitutes for transfats to continue production of donut sprinkles. There is not a substitute in the same way for cigarettes. The profits (not revenue, profits) of the six largest tobacco companies were just over $35 billion dollars last year, it would be political suicide for virtually any politician to endorse that for many reasons, including but not limited to popular opinion, the tobacco industry jobs, etc.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I have a question.  They want to ban trans fats right?  Why are cigarettes still legal?  If the government is playing nanny to everyone, by forcing food manufacturers to ban things that are unhealthy, why in the world would they keep cigarettes legal when they have no nutritional value, and contribute to lung cancer?  It is not like I don't already know the answer, but I am making a point.  If they could find a way to place a tax on trans fats, they would probably keep them legal. 

Because there are substitutes for transfats to continue production of donut sprinkles. There is not a substitute in the same way for cigarettes. The profits (not revenue, profits) of the six largest tobacco companies were just over $35 billion dollars last year, it would be political suicide for virtually any politician to endorse that for many reasons, including but not limited to popular opinion, the tobacco industry jobs, etc.

 

 

 

I am kind of on the fence about term limits.  In theory, we should be the term limit in that we have the ability to primary out anyone we don't like, but I do see the reasons for it.  And yes, those in government should have to live according to every jot and tittle of every single law they impose on the rest of us, including having to live with Obamacare.  I definitely think that would make a difference.

Term limits is not the answer. Just look at the president, for example. He'll be out of office in a couple of years (term limit), but thanks to the hundreds maybe thousands of new regulations he's put in place, not to mention legislation, no matter who gets elected in the next cycle, we citizens will be living under Obama's shadow forever. That goes for any elected official. Just look at what Pres. Bush left us to deal with. The political class has way, way too much power in this country. An educated, empowered populace is the answer. But, alas and alack, the public school system has made that all but impossible to achieve.

 

I don't think it's either/or, but both/and.   We need term limits on all of our elected officials AND we need an educated and empowered populace.  Both in concert with each other would ensure that we don't have this situation where a few guys up in Washington keep things in a perpetual mess.   We need new minds and fresh ideas and quality candidates will only come from a educated populace.  Term limits would go a long way in getting rid of the "old boys club" that exists in the beltway.  i am so tired of the political dynasties that seem to rule Washington.

[Marnie]

First off, ban the FDA. Second, we are being micromanaged to death and I suspect we'll be reaching a tipping point sooner rather than later. Living in a micro-regulatory state is NOT what America is about and it's not what most Americans want. There's a lot of discontent in the heartland that is festering and growing and, from my lips to G-d's ears, a revolution is simmering.

 

 

The fda is quite necessary. It helped prevent the damage in the us from thalidomide that europe saw.

I would suggest the FDA is actually responsible for more American deaths each year than it "saves," but that's a discussion for another place. I would further suggest that NO govrrnmental regulatory agency is necessary. The government itself tells us that monopolies are wrong. A regulatory agency, like the FDA or FCC is a monopoly, therefore... But then rarely does the government follow straight paths of logic.

[The_Patriot21]

Te FDA may have had good starts, but anymore, its grown so powerful as to be working against us. The FDA, along with the EPA needs to either be extingished-or at the very least have about 95% of its power stripped.

[other one]

 

 

First off, ban the FDA. Second, we are being micromanaged to death and I suspect we'll be reaching a tipping point sooner rather than later. Living in a micro-regulatory state is NOT what America is about and it's not what most Americans want. There's a lot of discontent in the heartland that is festering and growing and, from my lips to G-d's ears, a revolution is simmering.

 

 

The fda is quite necessary. It helped prevent the damage in the us from thalidomide that europe saw.

I would suggest the FDA is actually responsible for more American deaths each year than it "saves," but that's a discussion for another place. I would further suggest that NO govrrnmental regulatory agency is necessary. The government itself tells us that monopolies are wrong. A regulatory agency, like the FDA or FCC is a monopoly, therefore... But then rarely does the government follow straight paths of logic.

 

if it were not for the FCC you would not have any regular type of broadcast radio/tv/cell phones/ or any other number of things that would not exclusive use of a band of frequencies in areas.     no one would spend the money to build radio or TV stations or cell systems if anyone else could use the same frequencies....   it would be total chaos.

 

You need to check into what Ayin is writing about and see the destruction that not having the FDA.  It is a burden and makes drugs cost more, but go back to the snake oil sales of the days before it's instillation with the kind of things the drug companies do even with the protection would be a disaster.  thalidomide is just an example, but we can not know of the things that were not put on the market because of the testing necessary....    I think it is just one of those necessary evils that come with living in a society that we have today.

Please don't tell me that you trust the pharmaceutical industry not to be regulated.

[The_Patriot21]

other, I agree with you the point of the FDA, but I think its on a pendulum, I think its gone beyond the "useful" stage a long time ago, and is now hurting us.