pbfrontmanvdp Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 OMG this was just on the news today and they want to ban oreo cookies from being produced since they have to much trans fat in them. That way to funny how can you ban a cookie but not ban cigarettes i mean hmmmm....i wonder. Anyway though if someone finds this as amusing as me i would like to know what you think of this thanks. (Ban oreo cookies thats a sin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillieFan Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Oh, how mindlessly stupid. People will sue for anything and everything anymore. Isn't it OBVIOUS that cookies will make you fat if eaten in too large a quantity? I think American society is far too litigious. If you don't believe me, look up "Frivolous Lawsuits" in Google and you'll see exactly what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkenshadow Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Banning Oreo cookies *runs to the "Oreos"* I guess its quite silly to ban something such as a cookie when you could solve other more important subjects. As mentioned earlier smoking is a really important subject and I've heard they have sued a smoke producing company, oh well one more small steps to the health of our lungs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcCenTriC fairy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Yeah, I heard about that on the radio. Honestly one of the most horrendously idiotic things I've heard in a long time. o.O The man talking about it on the radio said that the harmful ingredient in the Oreos is "life-threatening." Has anyone heard of anyone killed by Oreos? Methinks not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posthumous Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I'm going on and guessing these people don't like milk...anyway this is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kweh Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Ban Oreos...this has to be one of the stupidest things i've seen since that guy who sued McDonalds... I wonder about some people sometimes... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjaza Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 You guys do realize that doctors and scientists are starting to realize that trans fat is probably the [i]worst[/i] thing in people's diets? He's going after Nabisco in particular because Oreos use quite a bit of that stuff for the creme and the actual cookie itself. I certainly don't think that he'll get any ban on Oreos anywhere (and he's mostly asking that they don't get given out to kids). His father or something died from a heart attack or something, which he feels was thanks to a diet based on trans fat foods such as margarine, so that's where his interest stems from. I don't really think anything will come of this, other than an increased awareness that trans fat is not a good substitute for anything and is more harmful than beneficial. I really think that's his whole point, and unless he did something stupid like this I bet no one would have noticed... I think he knows that too considering he's not just some run of the mill lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]You guys do realize that doctors and scientists are starting to realize that trans fat is probably the [i]worst[/i] thing in people's diets? [/B][/QUOTE] lol.. I just found that out too. I suggest the rest of you should probably look into this kind of thing before you go posting "this is stupid". I mean, all I had to do was search for "oreo ban trans fat" on yahoo, and pretty soon I ended up at a site detailing why trans fat is even more unhealthy than ordinary fat. It's not like it's that hard. Don't call something "stupid" when you haven't the slightest idea what you're on about. All that does is prove your own foolishness, in my view. Like Semjaza said, the banning of oreos on it's own is a bit drastic and stupid, but his aim is probably more to bring about an awareness that trans fat is dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegeta rocker Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I agree with the fact that it's dangerous. It is a stupid thing to sue over, but if you think about it, the strategy is brilliant. Just enough to get the issue heard. A lot of law suits are used to gain public awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcCenTriC fairy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 So basically what is this 'trans fat' stuff? I can't say I've ever heard of it, which makes me a little skeptical of its harmfulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [size=1]Heh, my dad sat down and gave us all a talking-to about Trans fat a few weeks ago...I think he read about it in Consumer Reports or something. Remember saturated and unsaturated fats from health class? (Or the side panel of your morning cereal box, whichever is more recent.) Trans fat is another kind, not currently labled. And it's bad. Raises "bad" cholesterol and lowers "good" cholesterol. (Yes, there are two kinds. Appropriately labled, no?) A bunch of people are getting pretty interested in it. I think Frito-lay is trying to eliminate/cut down on the amount in their food, as are maybe a couple fast food chains. It shouldn't really affect individuals--I mean, you can go ahead and eat your Oreos as often as you did before. They aren't any worse for you now than they were then. You just know a little bit more about them.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcCenTriC fairy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Thank you, I feel enlightened. ;) So what's the deal with kids and Oreos? It shouldn't be a huge deal. At least not as big a deal as some people are making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [size=1]I have to agree that it's probably just to heighten awareness. That's the only goal I think it could reasonably accomplish. Or, who knows? Maybe you'll need a driver's license to purchase cookies from now on. ^_~ Oh, and I found the Consumer Reports article if anyone's interested. [url=http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=300681&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162689]Tran Fat[/url][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcCenTriC fairy Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara [/i] [B]Or, who knows? Maybe you'll need a driver's license to purchase cookies from now on. ^_~[/B][/QUOTE] Oh, what would the world be coming to then?!? :eek: :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [size=1]But if he just said "Oh, they're bad for you," no one ever would have thought twice about it. And look how we've been thinking about it, now. Mission accomplished. ^_~ Dan didn't mean you said trans fat was stupid, he was referring to your comment that trying to "ban" Oreos was stupid. His point (I believe) was that what the man's attempting is not stupid, but actually a rather clever way to accomplish something else.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbfrontmanvdp Posted May 14, 2003 Author Share Posted May 14, 2003 Either or i would have been interested. I know that is a way to get a point across but just the fat of saying "trans fat found to be more deadly the unsaturated fat and saturated fat which are found in some products such as oreos an (and another person said fritos" would have caught my attention. And like i said a little bit of it isnt going to kill you just as long as you dont go over-board on it. And my bad i just noticed that he wasnt referring to me anyway so i apologize for what i said i thought he was talking about me. (MY BAD) :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juu Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i] [B]He's going after Nabisco in particular because Oreos use quite a bit of that stuff for the creme and the actual cookie itself.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=ff00cc] [size=1]Well, at least I only get half as much. I never eat the creme. :bluesweat It sounds really, really weird that they'd want to ban cookies. Especially when it's quite obvious alot of cookies will make you fat. And if you don't want to get fat, you have to learn to control yourself from eating too much junk food. Banning Oreos... :rotflmao[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genkai Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 As much as I like cookies, I stopped eating oreos at age ten because of te the trans fat. IT really, really, really, really should be less apparent in the food we eat, at least in foods marketed to kids , since the majority of children these days are slightly overweight,at least. Trans fat is a bad thing. Someone said that they couldn't ban ciggarettes but they could ban oreos. Oreos is not osmething many companies make. It's not the only thing these companies make. Nabisco makes oreos. About 20 companies in america alone sel tobacco products, and they ARE enough to overpower the government ina lawsuit. Adding to the list of things that kill when used correctly: Cigarettes, and NEW! Oreos. Okay maybe not, but theyre really bad for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klinanime1 Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Ah, suing. Yes, the favorite American past time. What is wrong with these people??? This is as stupid as suing Mcdonalds for "manufacturing very good quality toys." Don't you really know what's in everything you eat? Gee, could the info be on the little thing labelled NUTRITION FACTS??? What IS the US coming to? (About suing Mcdonalds, who would eat that stuff anyway? Don't people know what's in it? They feed the cows, herbivores, euthanized, and ground up, animals. They "accidentally" carve in bits of cow spinal chord. Ugh, and the grease... Don't even GET me started on Taco Bell.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Sorry about the last post. I was kind of in a bad mood as it was anyway. Just before I posted that, it took two hours for me to get to uni on the buses due to late buses, missed buses and traffic jams. So I was kind of not in my best mood, hence it kind of came out in a "look at all the stupid people" way. Sorry about that. I didn't quite intend it that way, as Sara said (or maybe I did.. I dunno, I was pretty peeved off at the time) Trans fats, from what I gather, are made by hydrogenation of unsaturated (I think) fats, which makes them turn solid, and it's what allows them to stay firmly solid at room temperature, unlike most fats. However, it's worth noting the main difference between saturated and unsaturated fats. The main difference between the two, chemically, is the amount of [i]hydrogen[/i] in the fatty acid molecules. Unsaturated fatty acids contain a fair number of carbon-carbon double bonds. Which, if you know organic chemistry, means that in a chain of carbon atoms, the number of oxygen/hydrogen atoms is reduced a lot. (oxygen and hydrogen make up the majority of non-carbon atoms in fats) Now, if you [i]hydrogen[/i]ate something, it involves adding hydrogen to the chemical structure. Hence it makes sense that if you add hydrogen to a saturated fat, which alters it's chemical structure (which it does) then the unsaturated fat is going to act more like a saturated fat, because the carbon double bonds will break and be replaced by [b]two[/b] extra hydrogen atoms for each one broken. Incidentally, the "saturation" referred to in saturated fats is the fact that the maximum number of bonds is formed within the chemical. Double bonds actually reduce that number, hence double bonds turn the fats "unsaturated" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 This is so damn sad, for one the amount of trans fat that you need to do anything bad to you is massive. If you really eat that many cookies in the short effect time then you need help. This comes back to American's not being able to control their diets, other countries as well but mainly American's. How can you sue a company for providing a food which is safe to eat? Just because you (the person suing) is such a pig that they eat way to much is not a good enough reason. It is just disgusting. (If you eat to much of ANYTHING you will have bad effects from it. Simple fact.) The only thing I think that needs to be banned is that Oreo ad with that "snob" of a kid teasing the poor dog. I hate that ad. Eps - Jesus, just don't eat so many cookies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klinanime1 Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Maybe whoever's suing will just have to have quadruple bypass surgery, or have a heart attack or something. Maybe there'll be complicaations, and they'll just croak. It's like they think the company's tying them down and force-feeding them oreo cookies. I swear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbfrontmanvdp Posted May 15, 2003 Author Share Posted May 15, 2003 True dan trans fat is a double bond hydrocarbon type fat, hence its more stable, hence it stays more of a solid. LoL i still hate the guy though that brought up the issue of banning it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwai Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Americans sue too much... and its surprising that some weird cases which are so obviously stupid win... I recall of one in which a thief tried to burgle a house, fell off the veranda or something, and then admitted the crime and sued the architect(or home owners me forget) for injuries and that the house was not built safely. And to make it worse, he actually won. Sad isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klinanime1 Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Sad, isn't it? The logic, if there is any, that revolves around the minds of these people are as twisted as their morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now