12/19/05 Notes and News

The Love of Money, continued...
...Starting in January 2006 food manufacturers and processors will be required to list trans-fat explicitly in the products nutritional information on labels. In the past, they have not had to do so. I understand all those hydrogenated and partially-hydrogenated ingredients will have to be labelled as what they are, trans-fats. And once again from what I read - I am certainly not a nutritionist and this site is for entertainment only, do your own due diligence, blah, blah... - trans-fats are bad for you, period. In any amount.
...What brought this to my attention again this morning was an article in The Daily Reckoning extolling the virtues of Bunge (symbol BG), since it is a soybean producer and is coming up with a product to help companies that have formerly relied on hydrogenation.
...Not picking on the Kellogg company, I am a cereal lover from way back, and there are several Kellogg's brands that are personal favorites, but I notice that Kellogg has announced that starting early next year, they are going to start using soybean oil from genetically modified soybeans in some of its products in order to reduce the amounts of trans-fatty acids and saturated fats in some of their products. Sounds good, and you can decide for yourself whether the timing of the product change is coincidental to the timing of the new product labeling regulations or not.
...But it speaks to a bigger issue, IMO. If it is agreed that hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated fats are bad for you in any amount, and can lead to health problems, then why use them at all? Answer: increased shelf life for the products that use them.
...So the government's solution to help you? Is it to outlaw harmful products? No, it is to put a label on the product so that you are advised the product contains ingredients that may be harmful to you.
...Isn't that reminiscent of the whole tobacco issue? With all the documentation out there about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, do you outlaw cigarettes? No, you require manufacturers to put a warning on the package that the product might be harmful to you. Does that make sense? From a health standpoint, I don't see how one can argue that it does.
...It only makes sense when you look at it from an economic standpoint. The economic costs to the corporations that make their profits from tobacco and from food products containing hydrogenated fats would be enormous if their products were outlawed. Look at all the people who would be put out of work. Look at the economic impact on the states which house those facilities. And that's just the direct consequences. Looking further down the food chain, pardon the pun, look at the potentially reduced revenues for the medical establishment if people quit using tobacco and quit ingesting hydrogenated fats.
...Do the medical and pharmaceutical industries make their money by your being healthy, or by your being sick and diseased?
...There's a lot of money on the line in these issues. And it seems to me that our health is of a lot less concern to the powers that be (PTB) in our society than people making money off our illnesses.