[quote]swivel wrote:
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense”
[/quote]
Because this world needs more common sense. And because when people claim they lacked basic common sense in certain scenarios so much so that they’re basically asking society/the courts to stick it to someone else, the plausability of their claims and their motives will be scrutinized in order to be fair.
[quote]swivel wrote:
you don’t think enron employees were actively mislead ?
[/quote]
Dude, I would love to meet the person who thought fried chicken was “health food” or who had no concept of the fact that some foods might not be as good for them as other foods in the year 2006. This is not the same as Enron.
When I see a Geico commercial, I don’t immediately drop my car insurance assuming that I will do better with them in spite of the many commercials that would hint at otherwise. Stupid people need to die. Evil lawyers are making it harder and harder for them to die off by making legal excuses for their extreme stupidity. Thanks to those lawyers and people like you, there will be BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dumbasses running around eating bathroom toilet deoderizers and sticking foil in microwaves. Thank you so much, Swivel for contributing to the dumbing of America.
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
swivel wrote:
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense”
Because this world needs more common sense. And because when people claim they lacked basic common sense in certain scenarios so much so that they’re basically asking society/the courts to stick it to someone else, the plausability of their claims and their motives will be scrutinized in order to be fair.
[/quote]
Exactly. It shouldn’t be my job or anyone else’s to support stupid people who can’t think for themselves. Laws should NOT be made in order to protect the dumbest people in society. If you want to eat dirt, there should not be a law preventing me from having dirt in my front yard. If you want to throw your penis into random vaginal orifaces without protection in spite of the tons of data and media about STD’s, FINE.
I don’t need a police escort when I have sex because YOU won’t wear a freaking condom. Just die. Let the dummies die off. Quit trying to save them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
swivel wrote:
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense”
Because this world needs more common sense. And because when people claim they lacked basic common sense in certain scenarios so much so that they’re basically asking society/the courts to stick it to someone else, the plausability of their claims and their motives will be scrutinized in order to be fair.
Exactly. It shouldn’t be my job or anyone else’s to support stupid people who can’t think for themselves. Laws should NOT be made in order to protect the dumbest people in society. If you want to eat dirt, there should not be a law preventing me from having dirt in my front yard. If you want to throw your penis into random vaginal orifaces without protection in spite of the tons of data and media about STD’s, FINE.
I don’t need a police escort when I have sex because YOU won’t wear a freaking condom. Just die. Let the dummies die off. Quit trying to save them.[/quote]
Agreed. AMEN!
I think people need to recognize there is a difference between a food that is merely “not a healthy choice” and a food that is full of trans fat. Trans fat isn’t merely unhealthy, its bad bad news - a “poison” as some have put it.
If these people were suing KFC for making them fat, I’d be with chinadoll and the others here. But this is a little different. Generally speaking, fried foods shouldn’t be a regular part of your diet - but eating them once in a while won’t hurt you at all. Say you love fried chicken. Eating grandma’s deep fried chicken as a cheat meal once a month or so isn’t any big deal. There’s where KFC diverges - its not merely fattening, not merely “inappropriate for every day”, its full of crap, namely trans fat, that makes it even worse than you think it is (and coincidentally, worse than it should be).
Put another way - typically moderation with things such as fried chicken is a fine way to go. But KFC is bad even in moderation - and I think that’s the difference here. I’m not saying a lawsuit is the answer, but I’d like to see the health nuts get off their high horses. There are plenty of people who eat KFC “every now and then,” maybe, you know, because they like the taste.
Its not an every day or even a once a week thing. So they think, I eat healthy, I exercise, I can afford KFC now and then. The trans-fat changes everything though. Thats the diff between this and people complaining they got fat of McDonalds.
I’m not denying KFC should be held responsible for being less than truthful. But people need to use their heads, also. Of the few fast food places I hit every so often, I have nutrition info for all of them. If they don’t have it at the store, I will look it up online
On the other hand, KFC is basically poison, as has been said, so they should either post the truth, or get rid of the shit in their food, like the article said. Even if KFC decides to remove the shit, it's gonna take awhile, even if they put a rush on it, and I'm sure they are not. McDonald's sure didn't.
Personally I think trans-fats should not be FDA-approved to eat. They banned ephedrine, and I’m sure more deaths and medical bills can be attributed to Tfats.
Trans Fat Lawsuit Against KFC Based on Thin Science
Thursday, June 15, 2006
By Steven Milloy, Fox news
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) sued fast food purveyor KFC this week claiming the food chain?s use of cooking oil containing trans fats is unhealthy.
Although KFC said the lawsuit was frivolous and plans to fight it in court, it?s not clear that KFC understands how frivolous the lawsuit really is.
In its lawsuit, CSPI asked a Kentucky judge to order KFC to use other types of cooking oils and to make sure customers know how much trans fats KFC?s food contains. CSPI?s lawsuit alleges that trans fats ? vegetable oils that have been altered to be firm at room temperature ? increase the risk of heart disease.
In announcing that KFC would fight the lawsuit, a company spokesperson said that KFC is looking at using other types of oil for cooking, but it is committed to maintaining ?KFC?s unique taste and flavor,? according to the Associated Press.
But there?s no need for KFC to switch cooking oils because the entire trans fat scare is based on junk science. While there are studies that purport to link trans fats with heart disease, when you look at the data and methodology behind the studies, their claims rapidly fall apart.
Studies indicate that consumption of trans fats temporarily elevate levels of so-called ?bad? cholesterol and temporarily lower levels of so-called ?good cholesterol.? This simple blood chemistry is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the significance of the temporary change in blood cholesterol levels.
Trans fat alarmists would have you believe that these transient blood chemistry changes increase your chances of having a heart attack. The available scientific data, however, don?t back up that assertion. A number of studies of human populations have attempted to statistically associate consumption of trans fats with increased heart attack risk, but the only conclusion that can be fairly drawn from any of them is that, if there is a risk, it?s too small to measure through standard epidemiologic methodology.
One of the major challenges for researchers is to tease out the potential impacts of trans fats from other dietary, lifestyle and genetic factors that might be relevant to heart disease. So far, it?s been an impossible task.
The failure of human studies to support the alarmism was amply illustrated a few years ago when the National Academy of Sciences? Institute of Medicine (IOM) jumped on the trans fat alarmist bandwagon. While touting studies showing that trans fats temporarily altered blood chemistry, the IOM glaringly did not cite any studies showing that trans fats posed any real risk to real people.
Despite the absence of real world evidence that trans fats are dangerous, the alarmism continues. There are at least two explanations for this phenomenon.
First, it?s been clear to the dietary research community for years ? although they?ve been reluctant to share this information with the public ? that the scare over dietary fat intake has been over-hyped. The final nail in the coffin of dietary fat hysteria came earlier this year when a major study concluded that low-fat diets provide no demonstrable health benefits over high-fat diets. So the trans fat scare constitutes a whole new way for researchers to scare the public about fat and to keep their government grants coming.
Second, the trans fat scare is a great new rationale for food manufacturers to introduce new and, perhaps, more expensive products that they market as ?good for you.? Food companies learned long ago that there?s more profit in reformulating and marketing new and ?healthier? products rather than trying to fight the bad science wielded by the well-funded, well-entrenched and essentially unaccountable public health bureaucracy.
Of course, the trans fat scare doesn?t work for every company in the food industry. Some can?t reformulate. Several years ago due to pressure from CSPI, McDonald?s announced that it would switch cooking oils to eliminate trans fats. But CSPI wound up suing the company after McDonalds could not find a substitute cooking oil that met its standards.
There are two other facts to consider as you are bombarded with media reports and food company advertising about the alleged dangers of trans fats.
Thirty years ago, the diet police scared us away from animal fat-based butter and began singing the praises of what they said was a healthier alternative, trans fat-based margarine. Now, the diet police have done an about-face and want to scare us away from those same trans fats ? all the while omitting mention that their butter scare was bogus from the get-go.
So what exactly would be the basis for trusting the alarmists this time around?
Also worth considering is the fact that CSPI has been in the business of scaring people about the food they eat for more than 30 years. From labeling Fettucine Alfredo as ?heart attack on a plate? to claiming that fat substitute olestra might make truck drivers sick enough to lose control of their vehicles while driving, to claiming caffeinated beverages cause miscarriages, CSPI has been and remains on the cutting edge of dietary absurdity.
It?s unfortunate that KFC has to waste its time and money defending itself from CSPI?s groundless lawsuit. On the other hand, KFC has a good opportunity to expose not only the trans fat myth but also CSPI?s antics in a court of law. Let?s hope KFC doesn?t chicken out.
Total Fat, Saturated Fat, Trans Fat, and Cholesterol Content Per Serving* Product
Common Serving Size
Total Fat g
Sat. Fat g
%DV for Sat. Fat
Trans Fat g
Combined Sat. & Trans Fat g
Chol. mg
%DV for Chol.
French Fried Potatoes?
(Fast Food)
Medium
(147 g)
27
7
35%
8
15
0
0%
Butter**
1 tbsp
11
7
35%
0
7
30
10%
Margarine, stick?
1 tbsp
11
2
10%
3
5
0
0%
Margarine, tub?
1 tbsp
7
1
5%
0.5
1.5
0
0%
Mayonnaise??
(Soybean Oil)
1 tbsp
11
1.5
8%
0
1.5
5
2%
Shortening?
1 tbsp
13
3.5
18%
4
7.5
0
0%
Potato Chips?
Small bag
(42.5 g)
11
2
10%
3
5
0
0%
Milk, whole?
1 cup
7
4.5
23%
0
4.5
35
12%
Milk, skim?
1 cup
0
0
0%
0
0
5
2%
Doughnut?
1
18
4.5
23%
5
9.5
25
8%
Cookies?
(Cream Filled)
3
(30 g)
6
1
5%
2
3
0
0%
Candy Bar?
1
(40 g)
10
4
20%
3
7
<5
1%
Cake, pound?
1 slice
(80 g)
16
3.5
18%
4.5
8
0
0%
*Nutrient values rounded based on FDA’s nutrition labeling regulations.
** Butter values from FDA Table of Trans Values, 1/30/95.
? Values derived from 2002 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 15.
?? Prerelease values derived from 2003 USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 16.
? 1995 USDA Composition Data.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Personally I think trans-fats should not be FDA-approved to eat. They banned ephedrine, and I’m sure more deaths and medical bills can be attributed to Tfats.[/quote]
Well yes. Seriously great idea, Kratos. (Doesn’t the FDA require a disclosure about TFA for products, and is this on KFC’s nutritional materials?)
And before that, Cigarettes- a potent poison. And Alcohol- deaths, cirrhosis of the liver, fetal alcohol syndrome, delerium tremens, domestic abuse, commuity violence would be greatly decreased. And teen drivers- many a motor vehicle accident will be prevented. And premarital sex…well you know, the STD and unwanted pregnancy thing. Just don’t ever let them ban caffeine or someone will have to die.
The butter-scare was pretty ridiculous. As long as you don’t use too much, what the Hell? Moderation, folks, moderation. Those CSPI people are like the PETA of the food industry.
Oh, and don’t worry Chinadoll. Caffeine will likely be around as long as the cockroaches, and legal to boot. Damn good stuff.
I don’t partake of the Colonel’s bounty anymore, not for a few years, so I don’t have a guide. The on-line guide lists trans fat data, though. Thouse guides are sometimes a pain to read, though. Unless you use a highlighter, but that would do no good on the computer screen.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
Oh, and don’t worry Chinadoll. Caffeine will likely be around as long as the cockroaches[/quote]
Thank goodness!!
The one thing I don’t understand is Andro is illegal and Trans-fat is still legal. But, then again Trans-fat makes Baseball players play worse…
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
swivel wrote:
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense”
Because this world needs more common sense. And because when people claim they lacked basic common sense in certain scenarios so much so that they’re basically asking society/the courts to stick it to someone else, the plausability of their claims and their motives will be scrutinized in order to be fair.
[/quote]
interesting how you edited the half of the statement that holds the meaning. let me ask you this : how do think good sense comes to be common ? you appeal to consumers to use common sense, doesn’t this also apply to kfc ? shouldn’t it be common sense for kfc’s product to actually be what they say ? do you work for kfc ? 
have you read the complaint ? it doesn’t appear to me that the idea is to “stick it” to anyone. more like the aim is to get kfc to fully disclose what’s in the food. and i don’t quite understand your post about trans fat being a myth. you said it was common sense that fried food isn’t good for you, but that article is saying it’s perfectly ok. you have to pick one.
lastly, how can you agree with kratos, whose last post i agree with very much, and not support this law suit ? the suit is trying to accomplish exactly what kratos said, not give some whitetrash a free ride.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, I would love to meet the person who thought fried chicken was “health food” or who had no concept of the fact that some foods might not be as good for them as other foods in the year 2006. This is not the same as Enron.
When I see a Geico commercial, I don’t immediately drop my car insurance assuming that I will do better with them in spite of the many commercials that would hint at otherwise. Stupid people need to die. Evil lawyers are making it harder and harder for them to die off by making legal excuses for their extreme stupidity. Thanks to those lawyers and people like you, there will be BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dumbasses running around eating bathroom toilet deoderizers and sticking foil in microwaves. Thank you so much, Swivel for contributing to the dumbing of America…Thank you so much, Swivel for contributing to the dumbing of America. [/quote]
we already have billions of dumbasses running around eating garbage, and that situation is being further propagated, watered, and fertilized by companies like kfc and their stupid ass commercials. they make stupid people, not me. i’m not the one posting shots of myself @ 7% and saying i owe it all to kfc. i’m not the one advertising that a boneless, skinless chicken breast has just 3g of fat when i don’t even have a boneless, skinless chicken breast on my menu. the unwritten rule of marketing is to make people dumber, thereby making the sale easier. create confusion and maintain initiative.
you do realize that when people are children they’re especially impressionable right ? are you telling me the current generation of kids just happen to be fat and stupid because that’s how they were making them that year ? companies like kfc and marketing to the point of deception and misrepresentation have no influence here ?
your idea of all stupid people finally dying off is kinda meglamaniacal, and one that i sometimes share btw. but it’s also as unrealistic as chinadoll’s pipe- dream that everyone will magically commonsense-up, stop buying fast food, and kfc will die.
kfc is not going to die. and neither will stupid people. contrary, kfc is going to do everything it can to make more and more people, and to make sure they’re as stupid as possible. i really don’t get your post. you live in a world full of stupid shit, which you recognize but are otherwise completely apathetic about improving ?
i know, naive and idealistic of me isn’t it ? perhaps the stupid people of the earth haven’t beaten me down yet.
[quote]swivel wrote:
chinadoll wrote:
swivel wrote:
why do the most on this thread just want to riducule others for not having “common sense”
Because this world needs more common sense. And because when people claim they lacked basic common sense in certain scenarios so much so that they’re basically asking society/the courts to stick it to someone else, the plausability of their claims and their motives will be scrutinized in order to be fair.
interesting how you edited the half of the statement that holds the meaning. let me ask you this : how do think good sense comes to be common ? you appeal to consumers to use common sense, doesn’t this also apply to kfc ? shouldn’t it be common sense for kfc’s product to actually be what they say ? do you work for kfc ?
have you read the complaint ? it doesn’t appear to me that the idea is to “stick it” to anyone. more like the aim is to get kfc to fully disclose what’s in the food. and i don’t quite understand your post about trans fat being a myth. you said it was common sense that fried food isn’t good for you, but that article is saying it’s perfectly ok. you have to pick one.
lastly, how can you agree with kratos, whose last post i agree with very much, and not support this law suit ? the suit is trying to accomplish exactly what kratos said, not give some whitetrash a free ride.
[/quote]
There are way too many lawsuits in this country, and I do not believe in that mentality. There are too many lawsuits and too much of not taking responsibility for your own choices and no amount of blaming others will ever fix the problems in society.
Secondly, of course trans fats are bad for you. But the banning of trans fats alone will not fix the obesity and coronary artery disease epidemics by any stretch of the imagination.
What I object to is the notion that (you yourself said) KFC is misleading the public by representing their product as healty and in your words promotes weight loss. It’s fried chicken, for crying out loud!
Removing the trans fats in KFC is not a quick fix by any means. Even with the trans fats removed, it is still calorie-dense, fat-dense, low-fiber, white flour coated, etc… etc…, deep fat fried foods ARE KNOWN TO BE a HUGE contributor to the Obesity epidemic (ie: that McDonald’s experiment) and Coronary Artery disease (the body will still make cholesterol in the presence of such great calorie surpluses that cause obesity). I don’t believe it’s plausible that anyone in their right mind would or should believe that deep fried foods without trans fats could ever be a healthy food choice. Try eating fast food french fries, donuts, chicken fingers, etc… deep fried in vegetable oil for all your meals for ten years and be sedentary and your health profile will be a mess.
Being healthy is a matter of taking the responsiblity to make healthy lifestyle choices.
What I also object to is the “Blame Game”. It’s someone else’s fault for my choices. It’s a bad mindset for anyone to have.
Sure, KFC should disclose that they have trans fats-- if they didn’t in their nutritional profile material, sure, they were deceptive. Sure, it is a good idea if the FDA did ban trans fats. But will that change the obesity and coronary artery disease epidemics? Will that make eating KFC deep fried chicken a healthy food choice for the average person? Doubtful.
[quote]swivel wrote:
their ads represent as good choices for the health conscious eater and people who want to eat better, look great and lose weight.
[/quote]
I don’t watch television. This is a serious question. Do KFC ads really represent this?
[quote]chinadoll wrote:
swivel wrote:
their ads represent as good choices for the health conscious eater and people who want to eat better, look great and lose weight.
I don’t watch television. This is a serious question. Do KFC ads really represent this?
[/quote]
Not that I’ve seen which is why I don’t understand his stance. I have never seen a KFC commercial acting like fried chicken is the key to fitness.
Chinadoll, IIRC those KFC commercials ran a few years ago, when the rebirth of the Atkins diet was all the rage. The commercials presented KFC fare as being a choice for those looking for high-protein, low-carb food. I don’t think they specifically said that fried chicken was healthy for you. But the implication was obvious that if you were following an Atkins-type diet, then KFC did fit the two requirements of low-carb, high protein. At any rate, the commercials didn’t run for very long, so their impact is debatable.
Let’s not forget, “common sense” has been muddied up quite a bit for many people since the Atkins Diet was re-popularized. For folks who were used to high-carb/low-fat as the “proper diet,” to be suddenly told that the exact opposite (high-protein/high-fat/low-carb) was now the way to go, well, it’s no wonder why so many remain confused.
All KFC had to do was mention the key buzzwords in their commercial – high-protein/low-carb – and people automatically labeled it “acceptable food” in their subconscious mind. Granted, people are still fools if they believe fried chicken is healthy, but I understand where the confusion may come from.
Without a doubt, we are innundated with mixed messages these days, and it’s not easy to filter out all the noise.
[quote]swivel wrote:
kfc is going to do everything it can to make more and more people, and to make sure they’re as stupid as possible.
[/quote]
This is the mentality I believe is dysfunctional. -KFC is doing everything possible to make sure people are as stupid as possible-…OMG No. People make their own stupid, or consequently wise, choices.
And isn’t taking responsibility for ones own actions and destinies why we are here on t-mag? Isn’t that what the wave of healthy lifestyle choices is about?
More truth in advertising: 7Up is all 100% Natural! Yeah, except that it still contains High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)which is hardly a natural ingredient. More corporate dis-information for the masses. And you can wash away inches with the Japanese Miracle Bar (of soap)this one the FTC shut down after alot of sales to “stupid” people. Corporations should be free to claim anything they want, as long as they can make lots and lots of money. Hell, they got great beachfront property in Arizona, its just a long walk to the water. Eating Pez will make the pounds drop off and after all Bowflex really is for the serious bodybuilder. No2 is still the best supplement on the market and Heroin is not addictive (the guy on the street corner told me so). We don’t need more lawsuits we need truth in advertising and as long as people blame the user, the seller will always get away with more…