Hi Helen

I think you missed what I was saying, sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

I wasn't commenting on the decisions 'ordinary people' make as such. My point was that some food companies (for example) know full well that trans fats have no nutritional value and can harm, and they have always known. Yet they not only did they (and still do) put them in foods, they are allowed to in the first place.

Live and let live indeed. I don't mind if people smoke, they have every right, they can eat and drink what they like to. Though smoking is different as it inevitably affects those around you. E.g. If the person sitting next to me drinks a bottle of brandy, it's only their liver that suffers, I have no problem with that.

My complaints were not at ordinary people. My comments were that such things that are bad for humans, without a shadow of a doubt, like trans fats, should not be in food in the first place. If people want to eat what I consider is an unhealthy diet that isn't my concern or business. But there's an unhealthy diet based on normal foods, and an unhealthy diet of non-foods that are in the food chain that shoudln't be.

So I agree the government should back-off on one hand: x number of fruit and vegetables, x number of glasses of water... because such recommendations will only change in time. But on the other hand there are some food additives that should never have been in our foods, but the laws are such that you can effectively poison people, as long as some MP is on your board of Directors, or you pay millions in taxes or dubious contributions to one party ....

... it just illustrates the point that money and ethics don't mix, never have and never will.

Quote

Now there's a good reply, Debs I don't think I've heard you say so much at one time in any post! (I wasn't answering you particularly, by the way, just kinda thinking out loud in general.)

You've hit the nail on the head, of course, about big business & big bucks - I think we all know this. We just need to learn discrimination.

You say that 'second hand' smoke "inevitably affects others". Not really. If I were to sit in front of you & chain smoke for 3 hours a day, with you tied to a chair so you couldn't get away, and I blew the smoke directly into your face so you had to breathe it all the time - then this would most definitely affect you. However you - and hardly anyone else - do not have to endure this ever. Unless in olden days, you spent every evening in a very smoky pub or bar....but then you chose to do that, and you had the choice to leave. And those who worked there had the same choices.

And when do you ever hear reports that probably the most harmful part of cigarette smoke comes from the multitude of chemical additives to 'enhance flavour' & other addiction enhancing reasons that the manufacturers sneak in? Not very often, eh? The kind of rollies that indigenous peoples who smoke till they're 105 use, have none of these additives in them!

And why do I break out in itchy rashes when I eat wholewheat bread? Not because I'm allergic to wheat or gluten, but because of the additives used in the processing. In so called 'third world/developing' countries where bread is made naturally, and doesn't come from a supermarket shelf, this never happens to me.

I could go on, but I won't. You get the gist.

Quote

Hi Before you read the below... I must say I didn't intend the tone of it to sound the way it did. It's just the way it came out but wasn't "aimed" at you (or anyone).

I haven't been on HL for very long so you may see more posting in the future!

I know the most harmful part of a cigarette are the chemicals,

As for how smoke affects me. 'Affecting' is subjective. Your description of chain smoking and forcing me to breathe hours of second-hand smoke may be your definition of 'affecting', but it isn't mine. If I define it by one whiff of smoke and decide it adversely affects me, then that's it. How you perceive my definition of 'affected' is immaterial to me. I'm not just talking about "I will get cancer", I'm talking about my asthma, and I'm talking about my simply not liking it. And the thresholds of affecting are mine and mine alone.

Just as my telling you what affects you. It just doesn't work. That logic suggests you telling me variable "A" makes you feel bad and my telling you it doesn't because you need variable "A" multiplied by 10 before it affects you. I don't know what affects you, only you do.

In addition, I still don't buy the 'choose to leave' argument. The means the onus is always on the non-smoker to move. Let's forget smoking... if I had a can of gas filled with foul smelling poisonous substances and I 'enjoyed' spraying it over people in public places ... and the poison? ...

"Well, it's ok, my great Uncle sniffed it till he was 110 and he was Ok, all this mumbo jumbo in the media, it's all correlational anyway... nah it's fine"

So it's still ok? No sorry. People want to smoke? Fantastic. But on this occasion, this hobby does affect others around you... and by affect I mean having to smell it. Therefore, it isn't just any hobby regardless of whether contains addictive substances or not. This one has to be endured by people in close vicinity. So the smoker has no responsibility because everybody in their vicinty can "choose" to leave? How about the smoker "choosing" to take some responsibility?

As for the good ol'rollies that were pure and everybody lived until they were 105. This statement would be fine if smoking was the only thing their bodies consumed. But back then food was different, activity was different, indeed everything was. Including statistics, science and attribution of death to various illnesses. So there's no evidence to say that smoking didn't do harm then whereas now-a-days it does. There are too many confounding variables that cannot be accounted for before we begin to look at that seriously.

Of course, if you want to believe it, I fully respect your right to do so.

I really haven't meant the words here to sound harsh, it isn't intended that way by any means so apologies if it was read that way. That's the problem sometimes with communicating only through a forum. Things sometimes sound how they were not intended. I have enjoyed the discussion and I thank you for it.

Last edited: 26-05-2008 10:45:43 AM

Quote