I heard somewhere that if in the ingredients of something it says “partially hydrogenated” before soybean oil, it means the soybeans were genetically engineered to survive the fertilizers the farmers use. Is this true???
Also, if it is, how is it correct to do this without warning labels on the food? Is it safe? They’re certainly hasn’t been any long-term studies on the effects for humans. I’ve noticed the partially hydrogenated soybean oil is in almost everything i eat. ex- margarine, vegetarian foods (soy hot dogs and such), cakes mixes and sooooooo on for awhile. Anyone want to shed some light on this? Thanks
I thought it just meant that the oil had be saturated partially with hydrogen. This would be to make it a solid at room temperature. I thought it could be made from any kind of soybeans.
Riiiiiiight. And the “K” in the little circle on a bottle of Snapple means it’s bottled by the KKK. Sure.
lunapark, it looks like you’ve been taken in by an urban myth (although it’s an urban myth I’ve never heard before). “Partially hydrogenated” soybean oil and/or cottonseed oil is the official, chemically-accurate term for vegetable shortening. You know, Crisco[TM]. It’s been done since “genetic engineering” meant cross-breeding your plants.
Thanks tracer and boris. I was thinking that it wasn’t true, i read it in a women’s magazine, allure or marie claire, or something. I’m going to look for it again.
Wasn’t it Marie Claire that also ran an article about a “double-blind placebo” trial of homeopathy, which turned out neither to use a placebo nor to be blind (much less double-blind)?
I’m pretty sure it was marie claire, though about the soybeans, just because it’s the only one i read at all. This is a good lesson on not believing everything you see or hear. I can’t believe those magazines (not to mention the newspapers that print wrong information) can get away with it. They probably post something in the next issue retracting their info, but it will be in small type somewhere while people like me spread the fear of soybeans.
I guess this wasn’t really a GD, but i thought it might get into the pros and cons of genetic engineering food.
The pros of genetically engineering food:
[ul]
[li]Bigger crop yields.[/li][li]New flavors.[/li][li]Crops that can be grown on land currently considered too inhospitable for growing crops.[/li][li]Crops that require less water.[/li][/ul]
The cons of genetically engineering food:
[ul]
[li]The general public doesn’t have a f*cking clue what genetic engineering is all about, and likens it to Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster. (Only a magazine like Marie Claire would announce that a process named “partial hydrogenation” could be a genetic engineering term.)[/li][/ul]
OK, all oils and fats consist of three long chains of carbon atoms strung together, connected to a molecule of glycerine at one end. When all the carbons have two hydrogens each attached, the molecule is saturated. In this state, the chains lie neatly next to each other and pack densly enough that the fat is a solid.
When you take away two hydrogens from adjacent C atoms, you introduce a double bond, which forms a kink in the chain. The chains then no longer lie neatly alongside each other. Enough of these kinks, and the fat becomes a liquid - oil.
Partially hydrogenated oil, then, is when they took liquid oil and added enough hydrogens to make it a soild. “Partially” because they could probably add more hydrogens if they wanted - but there’s really no point in doing so.
This is a purely chemical process. It can be done to any oil you want, so there’s absolutely no reason why you would want to genetically engineer this. It would probably screw up the plants if you did.
If anyone cared enough to read all this, I hope it helped.
I worked briefly in a fats and oils company (Loders-Croklaan) and I will verify what everyone else has said here is 100% correct. I might also add that your basic types of fat availible to the average household cook (unsaturated like oils, partially hydrogenated like crisco, fully saturated like butter or margerine) don’t even scratch the surface with the types and characteristics of fats and oils out there. We had specialty fats and oils that could meet nearly ANY physical characteristic you wanted. We had stuff that would melt in your hand, and stuff that was the consistency of polyethylene. If you had a commercial cooking application, we had a fat or oil you could use, or we would develop one for you. I learned a LOT from the 4 months I spent there as a lab temp. Facinating stuff, really!
Gasoline (octane) is a single long chain of 8 carbon atoms strung together, too. Or are we talking about really really long chains of carbon atoms, like, say, 20-ane or 50-ane? (I only know the words for the alkanes out to 12 (dodecane), so I don’t know what 20-ane or 50-ane are called. Icosane for 20? Or Andrew-Jackson-ane and Ulysses-Grant-ane for 20 and 50, respectively? )
Well, hey, lookie here. I think I found something that might explain what Lunapark saw without having to chalk it up to a magazine editor’s idiocy.
The Soybean Genetic Resources people are working on what they call the Better Bean Initiative. I don’t understand a lot of the technical stuff, but this is an attempt to breed a soybean that is lower in fatty acids and other bad stuff that is supposed to cause breast cancer, heart disease, and things like that.
So there does seem to be a connection between genetically modified soybeans, the process of hydrogenation, and health risks. Huh.
In the first part of the article, it’s not clear whether they’re talking about genetically modifying soybeans, or just plain hybridization, but way down at the end, under the section “Pests”, there’s this:
And then, of course, there’s the most important thing, buried in the middle:
That’s what it all boils down to, boys and girls. “Market potential”.
Fats are best described as glycerol esters of fatty acids. An ester is a molecule formed by the joining of an alcohol and a carboxylic acid. Alcohols are molecules with -OH groups on the carbon chain, while carboxylic acids are molecules with -COOH(one oxygen doubly bonded to the carbon, the other singly bonded to the carbon and to the hydrogen) on the carbon chain. An ester is formed by a process known as dehydration synthesis, where a water molecule is lost and the final ester has the form -COOC- (where one oxygen is doubly bonded to the carbon atom it was originally doubly bonded to, and the other is singly bonded to each carbon atom). A fatty acid is a carboxylic acid of long chain length, generally in the 12-20 carbon atom range, with the acid group stuck on the end. Glycerol is the simplest tri-alcohol; a three carbon atom chain with an alcohol group on each carbon atom. Put this all together, and you get a description of a fat; a glycerol ester of fatty acids, often called a “triglyceride”
So, then, a fat is ONE long chain of carbon atoms (with a -COOH tacked on to one end) connected to a glycerine, NOT three long chains, like Smeghead said?
Duck Duck Goose quoted the Better Bean Initiative[TM] as saying:
Oh, hey! That reminds me, I’ve been wondering about something weird I saw on a box of cookies.
In the “nutrition facts” box on the side of Nilla[TM] brand Reduced Fat Vanilla Wafers, it gives the fat breakdown per serving like this:
I always thought that saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and polyunsaturated fat were the only kinds of fat there were. Evidently, that’s not the case, because the total fat is 1.5 grams higher than all the grams of these 3 kinds of fat combined. What other kinds of things count toward “total fat”?
No, a fat is THREE long chains of carbon atoms connected to a glycerine molecule. Fats are also called “triglycerides” for this reason. Smeghead was largely correct, I was just clarifying based on your earlier question.
While this at one point had the potential to turn into a debate (because of the second point), instead it has definitely focused on the first point. As such, I think it will be better off in General Questions.
)