An interesting article I read a few weeks back regarding food scares, with a focus on the confusion regarding the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fats.
Actually, I think they are. What would top it on the list?
I agree 100%. Of course, one other question might be, “how easy is it to remove food item with x level of risk from our diets?” Maybe there’s something that is similar in risk level, but magnitudes more dificult to do without given current eating trends. In that case I wouldn’t blame the government for tackling the item that is relatively simple to remove while ignoring the other, at least in the short term.
If you’ve read a food label in the past year you may have noticed that trans fats are now listed. In fact I believe that a lot of food manufacturers have reformulated their recipes because of this. The thing about restaurants is that they are under no obligation to list ingredients. A ban, therefore, (or label laws) is a good way to ensure marginally healthier eating in those establishments.
You can. You can go right to your neighborhood grocery and buy all the transfat shortening you want to. You can use it to fry up or bake whatever you want, and smother it in salt and/or sugar, too. It’s just that NYC now is saying that restaurants can’t.
I think the comparison to other FDA rules is apt. Was a time that food producers could put any dam adulterant, filler, or whatever into what they sold. Now they can’t.
Myself, I’d just as soon have them use real butter, but then I’m not a vegetarian.
Can you (or anyone) clear up some ignorance for me, please? What is the difference between partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and fully hydrogenated vegetable oils? And does it matter which oil is hydrogenated for it to contain trans fats?
I ask, because you don’t distinguish between the two, and the Crisco site you provided lists the ingredients in the ‘no trans fat’ version of their shortening as [
](http://www.crisco.com/about/prod_info.asp?groupID=17&catId=63&FlavorId=344) So if trans fats are the result of the hydrogenation process, how can a product with a fully hydrogenated oil have no trans fats, but one with only partially hydrogenated oil have trans fats? Is it the proportion? Is it the type of oil being hydrogenated? Is it the fully vs partially aspect?
I’m also curious about the claim in this article, that says,
The regular Crisco that uses partially hydrogenated oils contains the same amount of total fat as the non-trans fat version, as well as the same amount of saturated fat, but its composition differs thusly:
So the trans fat-free version has more polyunsatruated fats – the good kind of fat, right? – no trans fats, and exactly the same amount of saturated fats. Seems like a better deal all around*. So does the full hydrogenation process improve the saturated fat content of palm oil somehow, or was that article mistaken about the higher levels of saturated fat in palm oil?
*Except, of course, for me, since I’m trying to avoid products with palm oil entirely, in an apparently fruitless effort to save the endangered orangutan habitat; “Palm oil plantations have been responsible for the clearing of hundreds of thousands of acres of orangutan habitat. Avoid foods that contain palm oil, palm kernel, palmitate or any derivative with the word “palm”.” <sigh> Sometimes you just can’t win.
Indeed. But that’s why I said it was the “closest” thing we had for evidence. In fact, IMHO, there is no evidence to show that trans fat consumption leads to bad outcomes - just a lot of speculation, self fulfilling hypotheses, and “good bets”.
I guess it depends on what level of proof you’re looking for. Me, I’m from Missouri. And when it comes to telling me and others what we’re allowed to eat, I, as a ‘grown-up’, would expect an even greater burden of proof on “mom”.
And before someone suggests across the board restaurant labelling (not you, tdn), many smaller restaurants plan a daily menu based on what foods they can get. So while getting a nutritional analysis done on a dish might be feasible for menu staples (another expense to be passed on to the consumer), it will kill any chance at daily specials.
That makes no difference to the point of my argument. If I want to avoid them, I will, and if I don’t care, then I won’t.
John Mace pretty much articulated what my next point would have been, so I won’t go into detail, but I will say this…there is a big difference between a poison or other hazard which would clearly cause instantaneous or imminent death, than a food ingredient which may contribute to heart disease in some people. I am not against ALL regulation, but I do believe that in this case, education of the public and fair disclosure on the part of food manufacturers and restaurants is adequate.
I agree with John Mace that there is great potential for a slippery slope in this case. It makes no sense to me that trans fats should be banned in restaurants, but not in prepared grocery-store foods. It probably won’t take long for lawmakers to come to the same conclusion. It also makes no sense that other foods that are also unhealthy have not been banned. It’s only a matter of time, I’m sure.
I don’t know, but I think it’s incumbent on those wanting it to be removed to answer that question.
I’m not really pro or con the ban yet, but still trying to make up my mind. Still, it seems like people are debating without all the facts. And since some folks have already decided that they favor the ban, I think they should explain to us undecideds and to the anti- side why this ban makes sense. So far, what we’ve mostly seen is trans fats = bad. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they are good, so let’s dig a little deeper.
Partial hydrogenation leads to production of trans (and cis) fats. Complete hydrogenation leads to saturated fats.
By the way, and again IMHO, many polyunsaturated fats are hardly good for you. They lower the HDL level which may even be worse than raising the LDL level. In fact, statistics show convincingly that HDL is by far the more important, more potent, risk factor for heart attacks.
I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Hydrogenating isn’t just a way to “save money”; it’s a way to make nonsaturated fat behave like saturated fat. I’m not defending it, because I do believe it’s bad for you. However, I think it’s a gross exaggeration to say the entire purpose of it is to save money.
I’m also a little skeptical when health officials make these broad pronouncements. In the 1970s, trans-fats were supposed to be the magic bullet to prevent heart disease. We all suffered through using yucky margarine instead of butter because it was supposedly so much better for you. Now we’ve done a complete 180 on it.
Oh, they definitely taste better. Try making biscuits with liquid vegetable oil and see how you like them. They do have substitutes for hydrogenated oil now, but they aren’t the same.
I think the outrage is that it’s “nanny government”. It’s not analagous to lead or rat hair. I’m all for restaurants offering healthier fare - the thing is, THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT. People object to nanny government because of the precedent it sets. Lots of things are bad for you, but not if taken in moderation. If the government can start banning food items because they are unhealthy, what’s next? No sugar allowed in restaurants? No fried food? No red meat? People want to make their own decisions, not have the government decide for them.
Hear, hear!
I agree with you here, as well. My biggest problems with the ban are that 1) I am not yet convinced that trans fats are no better than poisons, and 2) I don’t understand why a ban should only affect the restaurant industry. IF trans fats are as dangerous as some claim, then perhaps they should be banned entirely. If they aren’t, or can’t be proven to be, then let folks make a choice, the way that we do with many risky areas of life.
How interesting. I had no idea, so I did a Google search. It turns out that what makes a fat saturated vs. unsaturated is the arrangement of carbon and hydrogen in the acid. In saturated fats, the carbons are in a single-bonded linear chain with hydrogens at every possible bonding site. In unsaturated fats, you have two carbons double-bonded in a cis configuration, which distorts the linear chain. Trans fats are actually chemically similar to unsaturated fats, except that the position of the double-bond maintains a rigid linear structure. I never realized the word saturated in “saturated fats” referred specifically to the chemical saturation of bonds in the carbon atoms. Very interesting.
Of course, this also means that I’ve been using the phrase “hydrogenated fats” interchangeably w. trans fats, which is completely wrong. Fully hydrogenated fats are simply regular saturated fat. It’s only partially hydrogenated saturated fats that are the problem.
Karl, pull your Missouran head out of the sand.
Your cite, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, says:
Meanwhile, the New England Journal of Medicine concludes:
Now, if you want to quibble that NEJM said “has considerable potential”, go right ahead, but don’t be expected to be taken seriously. Your linked study isn’t even looking specifically at trans-fats, unlike the NEJM study.
I don’t know at all, but Cecil’s column on the subject doesn’t indicate full hydrogenation would result in lower levels of saturated fat. Though it doesn’t say much about full hydrogenation at all, really, and it’s also 18 years old.
But let me ask you something. If I recall correctly, you’re a physician. Do you have occasion to prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs? And for each of those drugs you prescribe, do you have proof obtained through clinical trials that that particular drug reduces the heart-attack risk for a patient of the profile you’re treating? The fact is that medicine deals very heavily in just the kind of supposition you’re decrying here. For most physicians, reduction in cholesterol = lowered risk, end of story. How are transfats any different?
John Mace, the NEJM article I cited earlier also says the following: “The evidence and the magnitude of adverse health effects of trans fatty acids are in fact far stronger on average than those of food contaminants or pesticide residues, which have in some cases received considerable attention.”
Weighing the potential harm of transfats against the cost and ease of replacing them, this one strikes me as a no-brainer. Certainly the FDA though it worth its while to impose stringent new transfat labeling requirements as of January 1 of this year.
I’ll say it for the third time.
I said the “closest” thing we had for evidence was that linked study. The “CLOSEST”. In fact, IMHO, there is no evidence to show that trans fat consumption leads to bad outcomes - just a lot of speculation, self fulfilling hypotheses, and “good bets”.
In terms of the NEJM quote you cited, that’s what I call “speculation”. Just like there was speculation and “the weight of evidence” that estrogens were good for postmenopausal women and vitamin E of benefit for all of us.
So, again, I’ll say: I guess it depends on what level of proof you’re looking for. When it comes to telling me and others what we’re allowed to eat, I, as a ‘grown-up’, would expect an even greater burden of proof on the state (“mom”).
As I said before, food labels must now list trans fats, so there’s not much of a hypocrasy.