That is the real question. It’s probably one with an answer that we could already know, as trans fats have already been phased out of many products. I don’t know what they’ve been replaced with.
I think fat should stay the same gender it was born.
I think they’ve just gone to straight vegetable oils, but different types - not all healthy - palm oil maybe as an example? Not sure.
One of the attractive features of saturated fats I think is that they don’t oxidize as easily and I think that was one of the reasons for using hydrogenated (artificially saturated) oils. Also I think they had better properties for frying and baking.
So it would be interesting to see if the shelf life of things that used to use PHO’s has decreased since the switch to straight veggie oil - things like snack foods maybe.
I am reminded of the American Dad episode in which trans fats are banned. Pretty entertaining.
Nitpick: suet, not lard.
I’m surprised that trans fats are even around anymore. It seems like a lot of manufacturers were tripping all over themselves to remove it from foods once the labeling requirement hit. Even Crisco got rid of the stuff.
Words have gender. Fat has sex.
Only if there is enough beer involved.
So…trans fats are going to be illegal, but tobacco is still legal?
Welcome to cloud-cuckooland, ladies and gents.
It seems cuckoo if you don’t really think about it. When’s the last time you ate something without knowing how much tobacco was in it? When’s the last time you opened up a bag of chips to discover a warning label inside?
Hear, hear. I think this is a step too far.
Is it a “nanny state” if it treats its citizens like children (even if some of them ask to be treated like children)? Because some people opt to give up their personal responsibility over their lives, does everyone have to have that responsibility taken from them?
And when the government is providing health care, does that mean that everything “dangerous” or even “risky” will be outlawed? So not just drugs, but alcohol, tobacco, rock climbing, driving, any number of other substances and activities. Who decides (hint: it’s not individuals)?
Trans fats are not completely valueless, they clearly make some foods taste better. However, someone has decided that instead of being informed about the risk, citizens must be protected from it, and that this “someone”, not the individual citizens, will decide whether eating trans fats is worth the risk.
As it happens, I try to eat a pretty healthy diet and so I would probably not encounter trans fats anyway. But I am perfectly capable of making that decision for myself, and taking the consequences.
Oh, and there is already a very effective way of telling food companies that you don’t want to eat products with trans fats – don’t buy the products.
Roddy
If trans fats are so irresistible, surely there will be a burgeoning black market after they’re banned. Enterprising capitalists should start filling silos and underground tanks with the goop, as popular demand is definitely going to skyrocket once we can only get boring old non-hydrogenated fats in our junk food.
Or, maybe we won’t really notice the absence of Frankenfat and won’t miss it in the slightest. Still, you could strike it rich!
monstro:
If all that’s happening is slapping a warning label on stuff with trans fats, then that’s a reasonable equivalent. What’s happening is that something that was very recently discovered to be unsafe will be unable to be sold legally, while a product that has been known to be unsafe for the better part of a century is still legal to sell. How is that not cuckoo? I understand the political forces that are at work behind the non-banning of tobacco products, but that doesn’t make it less crazy that it remains an island of legality in a sea of substances banned for their health risks.
I’m glad they are doing this and say with no trace of sarcasm that its much better in this case for the consumer to have no choice in the matter. Transfats are simply bad for you, like putting some slow-acting poison in food. Its everywhere and impossible for one person to make sure that they are not exposed to it. Only the government can effect large change like this and I’m glad they are moving ahead with it.
I have no doubt some people think this is a slippery slope. I usually ignore those people.
Wait, they’re putting tobacco in food now? I had no idea!
Probably. 
That’s good, actually. Good food is a good thing. And cheap is good too. So, yeah. It’s good that yummy food is cheap. 
WhyNot:
I assume this comment is directed at mine earlier. I don’t really get the snark, though. Who cares whether the substance is ingested or inhaled? If the government can ban stuff on the basis of its bad effects on the health of its consumers, then tobacco is a sore thumb sticking out of that landscape.
Plenty of non-food substances are banned. Lead paint. Lead plumbing. Asbestos insulation.
Here’s an articlethat talks about various food myths. Numbers 5 and 6 are directly relevant but so are some of the others. Claims are footnoted.
Because bringing tobacco into it is a total non-sequitur. Primarily because the FDA doesn’t regulate tobacco. They do regulate FOOD, and FOOD ADDITIVES, and their entire raison d’être is making sure our FOOD (and medication) supply is safe. This FOOD ADDITIVE has been found to be unsafe, and doesn’t belong in FOOD.
Secondarily, it’s snark worthy because it’s illogical adolescent reasoning. Because we can’t fix everything (all at once) we should fix nothing? So when your kid brings home 2 F’s, they shouldn’t study math because they’re also failing history? Then how does anything ever get done if nothing can be first?
You might as well say that lead in food shouldn’t be prohibited because tobacco is legal.
Your entire post is based on an incorrect assumption. The FDA does regulate tobacco, via the Center for Tobacco Products. You may want to back off the snark and the all caps.