- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You may no longer be able to “taste the rainbow” in California
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:56 am to stout
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:56 am to stout
quote:
They put red dye in Salmon to make it look more pink. Do you think that's OK or maybe it shouldn't be allowed.
There’s always alternatives. I can assure you there’s places to get salmon as natural as when they came out of the water. I’m not arguing for these additives, but an entire economy can, does and will exist with all natural fish, seafood, meat, vegetables, etc…
0
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:56 am to BillyGibbons
quote:
Hell must’ve frozen over because I actually agree with California for once.
You don't need government to tell you what is and isn't good for you. That's what your brain is for.
quote:
I’d love to see the the personal holdings of big food execs and see how many pharmaceuticals they hold because I’m pretty sure our food is engineered to get us on long-term prescription medication.
If you can't figure out that candy and coke isn't good for you, and you need big government to make those decisions for you, then maybe you aren't capable of making intelligent decisions when voting.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The key is to produce better decision makers, not have the government make decisions for you.
I agree to an extent, but most hard working, educated Americans (and the lazy dumb ones obviously) don’t have the time to keep up with the random shite companies decide to throw into food. Candies and cookies are one thing; but when even fresh produce and meats have ridiculous additives, antibiotics, or other potentially harmful chemicals, it’s a problem that needs regulation.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:57 am to stout
Alcohol is bad for you. Is CA gonna ban wineries?
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to stout
quote:
titanium dioxide
This one is a reach. If you look at the MSDS for it, the only hazard is for inhalation. The oral toxicity is over 10,000 mg/kg for both acute and chronic.
titanium dioxide MSDS
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:oh look... got me a two for one
If it pisses off both fatties and fàgs, then it's good by me
Now you'll be safe from your own choices. We know you don
t do illegal substances.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to BugAC
quote:
The lack of individual thought from some of you is staggering.
If you don't want something....DON'T CONSUME IT. Why do you need government to hold your hand?
You keep singling people out in this thread when most people are talking on a macro level and not about their personal decision making.
And if you haven't looked around lately, the entire country is fat as frick.
I'm not sure where I personally land on this, but I can definitely see an argument for banning harmful things in all types of food, staple foods included.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to StringedInstruments
OT: this inflation is ridiculous. hard working people can't make ends meet.
also OT: if you don't want (often completely unnecessary) cancer causing chemicals in your food, just spend some way more money and do some research. or just buy a farm and grow it yourself.
also OT: if you don't want (often completely unnecessary) cancer causing chemicals in your food, just spend some way more money and do some research. or just buy a farm and grow it yourself.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to stout
quote:
The problem is when there are chemicals known to cause cancer and they are unavoidable sometimes.
You do know that everything causes cancer, right? That big ball of fire in the sky causes cancer. The soil our food comes from, contains arsenic. The food you grill, contains carcinogens. Blanketly stating, "they should ban x because it has ingredients known to cause cancer" is simple minded thinking. There are safe levels of "things that cause cancer" that don't give you cancer. This is food babe type hysteria.
quote:
I'm not for more Government either
ok
quote:
but I also know some things should not be allowed in a civilized first world country.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
Alcohol is bad for you. Is CA gonna ban wineries?
You shut your whore mouth!
Posted on 3/17/23 at 7:59 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
but most hard working, educated Americans (and the lazy dumb ones obviously) don’t have the time to keep up with the random shite companies decide to throw into food.
I disagree, unless youre eating prepared foods or eating out all the time.
Everyone should know there's dye in many candies and these dyes aren't the best for you. We learned it as children.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:00 am to stout
quote:
harmful to DNA
But you can cut your dick off or kill unborns with their encouragement.
Gotcha
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:02 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
Is CA gonna ban wineries?
Their Governor is an effete wine merchant, as Tim Dillon would say. Plus, his wineries just benefited from the bailout of SVB. Wineries aren’t going anywhere.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:02 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
also OT: if you don't want (often completely unnecessary) cancer causing chemicals in your food, just spend some way more money and do some research. or just buy a farm and grow it yourself.
Research doesn't cost anything. It's pretty funny that you think being educated is such a chore.
Also, farmer's markets are much cheaper than grocery stores. Not sure where you're shopping.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:03 am to GreatLakesTiger24
The issue with absolute stances on regulation/deregulation is that you end up in a silly place when you take either one to its logical conclusion. There had to be some nuance, and not allowing corporations to put harmful fillers in everyday foods is one I'm willing to accept.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:04 am to Ingeniero
I think the main problem with the bill is it's targeting candy. I think most people understand candy is bad for you.
They should focus on staple foods, and make sure harmful additives aren't added to those.
They should focus on staple foods, and make sure harmful additives aren't added to those.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:05 am to stout
It’s tobacco or nicotine addictive?
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:05 am to Ingeniero
quote:
not allowing corporations to put harmful fillers in everyday foods is one I'm willing to accept.
What about safe amounts? Because that's what this bill is attacking.
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:06 am to bbap
quote:
. I think most people understand candy is bad for you.
Evidently not
Its hard to believe, but some people need gubment to tell them. But remember, most legislation is written by lobbyists and special interest. Probably competitors.
This post was edited on 3/17/23 at 8:08 am
Posted on 3/17/23 at 8:09 am to BugAC
quote:
You don't need government to tell you what is and isn't good for you. That's what your brain is for.
Never said I did. I don’t eat junk food because I’m intelligent and understand basic nutrition and it’s effects on long-term health. That being said, I’m not comfortable with major corporations poisoning the people who don’t understand those things. If not banning at least stern warnings like cigarettes got.
Something like this maybe…
Warning: long term use or consumption of this product may lead to heart disease, type II diabetes, obesity, and cancer
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News