FDA to ban trans fats

[ThinClient]

Any amounts less than 0.5g/serving can be rounded down to 0 on the label

Really?! D:

 

[Incorruptible]

How dare they ban harmful substances with much healthier alternatives from our food supply! Call Dr. Paul, Time for revolt is nigh!

You moron! It's not up to them to ban trans fats but to the market. Why don't they ban cigarettes which are very harmful to your health?

 

[brycejones]

You moron! It's not up to them to ban trans fats but to the market. Why don't they ban cigarettes which are very harmful to your health?

Since artificial trans fats are not present in every food product would you support labeling those products that contain them so consumers can make a choice and let the market decide?

 

[Incorruptible]

Since artificial trans fats are not present in every food product would you support labeling those products that contain them so consumers can make a choice and let the market decide?

I have no problem with the labeling. And how about you stop following me around P&N?

 

[dank69]

Lard. Or fatback.

In my limited understanding, since those are not refined like trans fat they have drawbacks, most notably with smoking points.

 

[brycejones]

I have no problem with the labeling.

I am glad that we agree on labeling. I think its a fair step that actually would give market forces a chance.

 

[Howard]

Suppose we could make the circulatory system last 150 years..

what's the point if the mind is gone at 95 ?

To me that's a problem with banning versus letting people make informed choices.

Logic not found.

 

[BUnit1701]

In my limited understanding, since those are not refined like trans fat they have drawbacks, most notably with smoking points.

I would rather have to air out the house after frying a chicken than fry it in some chemical concoction that will damage my circulatory system.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You moron! It's not up to them to ban trans fats but to the market. Why don't they ban cigarettes which are very harmful to your health?

indigestible get's really irate when you mock his secret crush. kinda like how the market demanded a ban on mercury levels, or red dye #2, etc....

you're such a predictable buffoon indigestible.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm pretty sure partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is a manufactured substitute for butter or lard, both of which are natural foods.

And are probably identical in their harmful trans fat content.

no, they're not. butter and lard have saturated fats with little to no trans fat content. whereas pure transfat is nothing but.

You moron! It's not up to them to ban trans fats but to the market. Why don't they ban cigarettes which are very harmful to your health?

i don't recall signing up to be slave to the "market." the market exists to serve us, not the other way around. sometimes we get to reign it in.

 

[dank69]

I would rather have to air out the house after frying a chicken than fry it in some chemical concoction that will damage my circulatory system.

I'm not so certain that lard or fatback are that much better for our circulatory system. However, since the FDA is moving to ban the substance, there is certainly a possibility that there is a significant difference. Or, it might just be that trans fat is so widely used compared to lard that as a whole, trans fat is doing more damage to society. If that is the case, trans fat will likely be replaced with lard in everything. Time to invest in pork farming maybe, at least until lard needs to be banned.

 

[TerryMathews]

Logic not found.

You don't see the logic there?

Think of it as the biological version of running a water block on an Intel Atom chip.

 

[OverVolt]

Really?! D:

Haha, yes "0g trans fat" butter with 30 servings in the container can actually have 15g trans fat in the 8oz tub if partially hydrogenated is in the ingredients. Its obvious because when you melt it in the microwave or on the oven some still resists melting aye?

Fats are not complicated. The higher the temperature at which it is solid, the more likely it is to stick to your artery walls. Saturated fat in butter (Stearic acid) AFAIK is actually converted to oleic acid which is much more heart friendly/liquid at room temp. Palmitic acid on the other hand (palm oil, palm kernal oil, etc) is much worse for you as its solid and isn't as easily converted to oleic acid.

Just check the wiki pages you'll see what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmitic_acid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleic_acid

So basically quality matters alot when it comes to fats. Hurrah Olive oil. Soybean oil isn't that bad.

 

[BUnit1701]

I'm not so certain that lard or fatback are that much better for our circulatory system. However, since the FDA is moving to ban the substance, there is certainly a possibility that there is a significant difference. Or, it might just be that trans fat is so widely used compared to lard that as a whole, trans fat is doing more damage to society. If that is the case, trans fat will likely be replaced with lard in everything. Time to invest in pork farming maybe, at least until lard needs to be banned.

Im certain that a diet of nothing but lard or even every meal cooked in it would be unhealthy, but in terms of a 'fat' for cooking, it would seem to me the closer to nature, the better off it is.

 

[OverVolt]

Im certain that a diet of nothing but lard or even every meal cooked in it would be unhealthy, but in terms of a 'fat' for cooking, it would seem to me the closer to nature, the better off it is.

http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/lard-the-new-health-food

 

[Incorruptible]

no, they're not. butter and lard have saturated fats with little to no trans fat content. whereas pure transfat is nothing but.




i don't recall signing up to be slave to the "market." the market exists to serve us, not the other way around. sometimes we get to reign it in.

Slave? That's some nice rhetoric.

There is a difference between trans fats which should be decided by the market and chemicals which shouldn't be in the food and the two aren't comparable. You get to influence the market with your wallet but not using the power of government in this case.

 

[Nintendesert]

The danger of saturated fats has been widely overblown during the non-fat craze of the 80's and 90's. It's far more healthy for us than the transfats we turned to and sugars and carbs contribute more to being fat than lard ever could.

I don't understand the retarded mentality of returning to the days of pre-The Jungle and I think history has pretty well shown us just how much harm a totally free market will do to consumers. Corporations afterall only exist to serve its shareholders, not the public or its well being.

 

[dank69]

Slave? That's some nice rhetoric.

There is a difference between trans fats which should be decided by the market and chemicals which shouldn't be in the food and the two aren't comparable. You get to influence the market with your wallet but not using the power of government in this case.

Hey guys Incorruptible has a problem with rhetoric! You heard it here first!

 

[Tom]

Im certain that a diet of nothing but lard or even every meal cooked in it would be unhealthy, but in terms of a 'fat' for cooking, it would seem to me the closer to nature, the better off it is.

The universe is mostly hydrogen.

 

[ElFenix]

Hey guys Incorruptible has a problem with rhetoric! You heard it here first!

 

[Howard]

You don't see the logic there?

Think of it as the biological version of running a water block on an Intel Atom chip.

I don't see the logic because his premises are completely off-kilter. No human body will last to 150 years even if you eliminate trans fats altogether.

 

[Tom]

I don't see the logic because his premises are completely off-kilter. No human body will last to 150 years even if you eliminate trans fats altogether.

Because I eat a lot of trans-fat I can't run a marathon because I'm too fat.

So I didn't die a couple of hours after talking to Al Roker.

The government wants to make me skinny, thus making it that much more likely I'll have to talk to Al Roker.

Do you understand that ?

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't see the logic because his premises are completely off-kilter. No human body will last to 150 years even if you eliminate trans fats altogether.

His point, that you are oblivious to, is that there's no reason to maximize the longevity of the cardiovascular system beyond that of the neurologic system.

Its a morbid, but fair point.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It is.

Oily fats is liquid at room temps. By pumping the oil with hydrogen, the free carbon bonds in the fatty acids molecules bond with the hydrogen. Making the molecule bigger and firmer. It's a chemical reaction which changes the fatty acid from unsaturated to saturated. It changes the geometry of the bonds and doesn't make an appreciable change in size, but it does change the geometry, which allows it to be more dense because it can pack tighter. If all "ends" of the molecule bond to the hydrogen atoms, it basically becomes a solid "block" of fat that is basically unusable because it is so solid. The "ends" don't react, the double bonds do, which are in the middle. Changing the geometry and making it more dense allows it to pack tighter, which raises the melting point, converting what were oils into solids. In terms of metabolism, they behave pretty much the same, the saturated fat isn't "useless" as you mentioned, but it does have slightly higher calorie content (but only a smidge). This is where the partial comes into play. The oil isn't fully pumped up with hydrogen to make it into a solid lump of fat. It is now mostly solid, basically a gelatin. It's not basically a gelatin, it's just a higher melting fat.

I was reading various reason of why that partially hydrogenated oil molecule is "bad" for you. Partly it is because the molecule is bigger and now "Sticky" in a sense. It's not really bigger, it's actually quite a bit smaller in terms of density. And it certainly isn't more "sticky", it's just it has more efficient overlap by virtue of the fact it's able to pack tighter. Being sticky means the fat molecule bonds readily to other things. No. Just no. Such as other flavor molecules, which is why the trans fat makes food taste better. Also no. I don't think there's an appreciable difference in taste between the fats. As the preparation and cooking process of the food does lose so much flavor. The problem with the stickiness is that the fat bonds with itself. It does that anyway. The thing with saturated fats and trans fats is they raise your HDL levels, which are less healthy. Unlike saturated fats, trans fats don't also raise your LDL, which is what makes them worse than saturated fats. Making the fat molecules bond with each to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Still no. Which is what happens when the molecule goes through your blood vessels. The molecule sticks to the side and passing transfat molecules stick to it. Making them clump up and get bigger. Eventually forming a plaque solid. That's the basics of it. This happens with all fats, including saturated fats.

The first paragraph isn't exactly technically right, but I suppose it gets about 50% of the point across. Your second paragraph is complete loony bullshit.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm pretty sure partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is a manufactured substitute for butter or lard, both of which are natural foods.

And are probably identical in their harmful trans fat content.

There is some tiny amount of trans fat in butter and lard but they're mostly saturated fat.

See? Many people think trans fat is a natural product. And libertarians expect the free market to get rid of trans fat?