Should "trans fats" be banned?

[cwes99_03]

1) the ban is only in dealing with restaurants and their use of trans-fats currently, therefore it is similar to the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars the city of New York and other cities accross America have adopted.

2) smoking doesn't just affect the smoker, because of second hand smoke

3) trans-fats only affect the body of the person eating the transfats, while children may see an adult set a bad example of eating a trans fat filled food, the same can be said of people legally smoking in an open air environment

4) the only way trans-fatty foods affect those who don't consume them, is in their pocket books (as already stated) and relationships

 

Side note:

Just goes to show that the Big Tobacco lobby is much more powerful than the trans-fat lobby. :P

[Michaelangelica]

There are exceptions, he adds, particularly sodium nitrate, a common meat preservative, and hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which many manufacturers add to baked goods, especially cookies and crackers, to extend their shelf life.

 

Hydrogenating turns vegetable oil, usually a liquid, into a semisolid. Partial hydrogenation reduces the levels of healthier polyunsaturated oils and also creates trans fats, which promote heart disease, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (www. cspinet. org ).

 

“These are really the main concern right now,” Hakkak says. In the case of hydrogenated oils, “we know that they can clog the arteries worse than cholesterol. Stay away from them.”

 

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Style/169990/

[Edella]

The Us government was formed to protect the people of America from all harm...

I wholeheartedly disagree.Think of the freedoms we have that could be taken away because they are just too damn dangerous.Consider the risks we take in our everyday activities.For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83! If the U.S. government should protect the people of America from all harm,certainly driving a motor vehicle is more dangerous than having french fries twice a week...

...that includes from ourselves.

The government is not my nanny.The government is merely an extention of its people.IMO, the state should not have a role in the conduct of individuals which is not harmful to others.(there are certainly some "gray "areas.)

 

Getting back on topic,I do think it is the government's job to inform the public of the risk posed by consuming too much trans fats,like it has with alcohol,tobacco,etc.But it shouldn't be the job of government to protect us from ourselves.There is a difference between encouragement and coercion.

[Michaelangelica]

Well argued

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Edella again."

But do you think the government really cares about warnings?

[Edella]

Well argued

But do you think the government really cares about warnings?

Yes.I may be naive,but I believe that most politicians honestly approach their job with the intent of bettering the lives of their constituents.But...

 

The initiative to banish trans fats from the dining table rests on the patronizing assumption that consumers are incapable of making informed decisions for themselves. Because consumers aren't intelligent or responsible enough to care for their own health, local governments feel they must step into private lives and micro-manage their eating habits for them.

 

I'm sure you know of MSG.When mono-sodium glutamate was developed as an additive to enhance the flavor of foods, the Food and Drug Administration declared it safe. Studies throughout the 1980s, however, suggested that MSG posed serious health risks as a potential cause of problems ranging from migraines to nerve damage. In response, restaurants and food manufacturers began posting labels declaring their products MSG-free. Consumers showed a preference for MSG-less foods, and most companies soon removed the ingredient from their products.

 

Just one example of people "policing" themselves. There are probably others.

 

Boldly Going Nowhere,

Ed.

[Michaelangelica]

In response, restaurants and food manufacturers began posting labels declaring their products MSG-free. Consumers showed a preference for MSG-less foods, and most companies soon removed the ingredient from their products.

Ed.

You have a very trusting attitude to corporate morality

They did not remove MSG, they just changed its name.

Why leave out an ingredient which is cheap and makes people eat more of your product?

For the new names see the end of this article:

http://www.rense.com/general52/msg.htm.

See also the hypography thread here MSG Chain letter meme

[Edella]

You have a very trusting attitude to corporate morality

They did not remove MSG, they just changed its name.

It seems I do.Time do do some more(and better) research. One thing I'm sure of is that FDA food labeling laws in America need to be reformed. Natural Flavors? What does that mean? Cat **** is a natural(and tasty) flavor,just ask my dogs.:hyper:

 

As mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR101.22 Subpart B: Foods: Labeling of Spices, Flavorings, Colorings, and Chemical Preservatives, the terms "flavors", "natural flavors", or "flavorings" may not include MSG, hydrolyzed proteins, and autolyzed yeast.Each of these must be declared on the label by its common or usual name rather than hidden within another blanket term. How do companies get around these rules?

[Michaelangelica]

As mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR101.22 Subpart B: Foods: Labeling of Spices, Flavorings, Colorings, and Chemical Preservatives, the terms "flavors", "natural flavors", or "flavorings" may not include MSG, hydrolyzed proteins, and autolyzed yeast.Each of these must be declared on the label by its common or usual name rather than hidden within another blanket term. How do companies get around these rules?

Interssting

I live in a different country, so I don't know the answer to your question. Certainly blanket terms are used here;

and as most Aust. companies are owned by USA companies. . .. . .?

 

There is also that wonderful term "Nature Identical " flavours

[Michaelangelica]

Watch when you go travelling

According to the program, 10 Chinese restaurants in Seoul put 4 to 22 grams of MSG in a bowl of chajangmyon, which weighs on average 700 grams.

 

With an ongoing controversy over the dangers of MSG, the program interviewed some people who complained of headaches or higher blood pressure after eating chajangmyon.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200610/kt2006102219080911990.htm

[Michaelangelica]

http://www.new-jersey.ws/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=15178

Viewpoints: Trans Fats Under Fire

 

Voice of the Peopleby James J. Devine

 

The New Jersey Restaurant Association immediately opened fire when a lawmaker proposed that food servers avoid unhealthy cooking oil, but state Sen. Ellen Karcher’s legislation that would bar trans fats from being served by New Jersey restaurants is an idea worth thinking about.

 

The ban would prohibit chefs from using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which results from an industrial process designed to extend the shelf life of products but has been proved unhealthy.

 

“We’re very distressed that once again the industry and the public are facing an encroachment on their rights,” said Deborah Dowdell, the association president.

 

Karcher noted experts contend people can still enjoy food such as French fries because they can be made with other substances. Corn, canola and soy oils are considered healthier, while also generally tasting and costing the same.

 

On Sept. 26, the New York City Health Department proposed for public comment two separate initiatives that will affect New York City restaurants.

 

There is not much to debate here, because cooking in restaurants eliminates the need for preservatives, and that’s why trans fats are used. I assume even take out orders are consumed soon after purchase.

 

Of course it would be better if people controlled their own eating habits, but having dieted I can attest to the difficulty of staying on track while out in the world.

and

I'm amazed by the proposed trans fats ban

 

Early accounts of a New York City Board of Health hearing today -- relating to banning trans fats from the city's restaurants -- suggest support for the measure.

 

I'm all for labeling -- whether it be calorie counts or trans fats. But I'm far less certain that governments should be dictating to restaurants what they can, and cannot serve patrons. And I'm surprised the general public is willing to go along -- as indicated by the tone of the public hearing as well as this online poll by the Wall Street Journal (61 percent in favor of such a ban).

 

Trans fats are, indeed, bad for you. But so are a lot of things we eat. Here's a measured report on the scientific evidence from the American Council on Science and Health:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/10/im_amazed_by_th.html

same site

What kind of SciGuy are you? Transfats are bad - they are worse than tobacco and you think that governement has no role in banning it. I don't think you researched this issue throughly.

 

If you add up all the costs of statin drugs then you know the cost we are paying for these transfats.

 

Go drink some DDT. If you can't find it anywhere in the US then you know why? Because the government banned it.

 

It is yahoos like you that caused our health care crisis. Who is paying the cost of this health care crisis. The taxpayers.

 

You sound like a loser than a scientist.

 

Posted by: navin at October 31, 2006 11:14 AM

Wikipedia

. . . the largest amount of trans fat consumed today is created by the processed food industry by partially hydrogenating unsaturated plant fats (generally vegetable oils).

 

Trans fats occur naturally, in small quantities, in meat and dairy products from ruminants. Most trans fats consumed today, however, are industrially created through partial hydrogenation of plant oils and animal fats — a chemical process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911.

"trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health",[1] whether of animal or plant origin.[7] Second, while both saturated and trans fats increase levels of LDL cholesterol (so-called bad cholesterol), trans fats also lower levels of HDL cholesterol (so-called good cholesterol) [2]; this increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). The NAS is concerned "that dietary trans fatty acids are more deleterious with respect to CHD than saturated fatty acids".[2] This analysis is supported by a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) scientific review that states "from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit."[3]

 

Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats.

This is because any incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2]

 

Despite this concern, the NAS dietary recommendations have not recommended the elimination of trans fat from the diet.

These have displaced natural solid fats and liquid oils in many areas, notably in the fast food, snack food, fried food and baked good industries. Vegetable shortenings are primarily trans fats packaged for home use, and some margarines contain a large proportion of them. Foods containing artificial trans fats formed by partially hydrogenating plant fats may contain up to 45% trans fat compared to their total fat.

. . .

Coronary heart disease

 

The primary health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).[19] A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats was published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine that concludes that there is a strong and reliable connection between trans fats and CHD.[3]

. . .

The Walt Disney Company will begin getting rid of trans fats in meals at domestic theme parks (Disneyland, Walt Disney World, etc.) by the end of 2007. They will also be stopping the inclusion of trans fats in licensed or promotional products by 2008.[52]

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

[Michaelangelica]

City declares war on a new public enemy -- trans fat

 

By Janice O'Leary, Globe Correspondent | December 3, 2006

 

 

 

Last month, the Cambridge Public Health Department recommended the city work with local restaurants to reduce the amount of trans fats used in food preparation, rather than ban the fats entirely as the Big Apple has done.

 

Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves has said he wants Cambridge to become one of the nation's healthiest cities, and reducing trans fat could help achieve that goal.

 

The city's interim chief public health officer , Dr. Karen Hacker , said the public health community is almost thinking of trans fat "as a toxic substance."

. . .

Some of that guesswork could be eliminated for consumers, Hacker said, if restaurants would put stickers in their windows or on the menu saying they are "trans-fat free." The sticker concept was one of the incentives City Councilor Brian Murphy suggested.

City declares war on a new public enemy -- trans fat - The Boston Globe

 

Since trans- fats don't occur in nature, our bodies don't know how to deal with them effectively and they act as poisons to crucial cellular reactions. The body tries to use them as it would the cis- form, and they wind up in cell membranes and other places they shouldn't be.

 

In recent years, measurements of trans- fats in the membranes of human red blood cells have been as high as 20 per cent, when the figure should be zero. While red blood cells were used because they're easy to access, it's safe to assume that most other cell membranes in the body also contain these unnatural fats.

 

Trans- fatty acids in cell membranes weaken the membrane's protective structure and function. This alters normal transport of minerals and other nutrients across the membrane and allows disease microbes and toxic chemicals to get into the cell more easily. The result: sick, weakened cells, poor organ function and an exhausted immune system - in short, lowered resistance and increased risk of disease.

 

Trans- fats can also derail the body's normal mechanisms for eliminating cholesterol. The liver normally puts excess cholesterol in the bile and sends it to the gall bladder, which empties into the small intestine just below the stomach. Trans- fats block the normal conversion of cholesterol in the liver and contribute to elevated cholesterol levels in the blood. They also cause an increase in the amount of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs), considered to be one of the main instigators of arterial disease (hardening of the arteries). Meanwhile, trans- fats lower the amount of high-density lipoproteins (HDLs) which help protect the cardiovascular system from the adverse effects of the LDLs. Trans- fats also increase the level of apolipoprotein A, a substance in the blood which is another risk factor for heart disease. Indeed, trans- fats have now been shown to cause even worse problems than saturated animal fats.

 

Another adverse effect of trans- fats in the diet is an enhancement of the body's pro-inflammatory hormones (prostaglandin E2) and inhibition of the anti-inflammatory types (prostaglandin E1 and E3). This undesirable influence exerted by trans- fats on prostaglandin balance may render you more vulnerable to inflammatory conditions that don't want to heal! Prostaglandins also regulate many metabolic functions. Tiny amounts can cause significant changes in allergic reaction, blood pressure, clotting, cholesterol levels, hormone activity, immune function and inflammatory response, to name just a few.

 

Many of these problems with trans- fats have been known or suspected for 15 to 20 years, but have been largely ignored in the US. In Europe, trans- fats are restricted in food products, and some countries allow no more than 0.1 per cent trans- fatty acid content. In contrast, margarines in the US may contain up to 30 to 50 per cent! Of course, the food industry denies there is any problem with this.

 

Meanwhile, scientific evidence continues to mount that trans- fats contribute to heart disease and possibly other conditions as well. Even the conservative Harvard Health Letter referred to them as "the new enemy".2

NEXUS: The Margarine Hoax

[Racoon]

New York City has now banned trans-fats. B)

 

New York City passes trans fat ban - Diet & Nutrition - MSNBC.com

 

NEW YORK - The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation’s first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

 

The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.

 

But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.

 

“We don’t think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved,” said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.

[HydrogenBond]

The problem with this question stems from empirical science. The statistical studies do indeed show a negative correlation between health and trans fats. What it can't show is who is vulnerable and who is not. Not everyone is vulnerable but the studies pretend this is so. What can end up happening is a person who is not vulnerable, deciding, to eat trans fats ending up in prison. That makes a lot a sense if one is a bully pretending to care.

 

A better strategy is to develop a test for vulnerbility. Forget about the nebulous risk studies that lump everyone together and only tell half the story. Then teach people the risks factors based on their vulnerability. They give them free choice like humans are suppose to have. Social policy should not be based on second string science that can't even pin the hazzard down on each individual.

[Buffy]

I haven't been paying attention to this thread, but I'm astounded it hasn't been mentioned:

 

The only benefit of trans-fats is that they last longer before going bad.

 

This means the manufacturers can put Sell By dates that are two weeks longer on your bread and chips, and it means that the restaurants only have to change the fat in their deep fryers once a week rather than every day. The added cost is negligible at the consumer level (although it will put the most inefficient businesses out of business, but The Economist will tell you that's a good thing).

 

It absolutely does *not* make the food "tastier."

 

Now, given that you know this, do you really *want* transfats around?

 

Arterial sludge,

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

The correlation between trans fats and health indicate that trans fats increase the odds for clogged arteries and heart related problems. What these studies do not say is that "everyone who eats trans fats will get clogged arteries and heart problems". There is a difference between these two statements, even though most people are led to believe one implies the other. In other words, one can find at least one person who has eaten trans fats all their life and never had a heart problem.

 

What this means is that laws against trans fats will discriminate against those who can tolerate trans fats in their diets. This is a violation of civil rights. In other words, the majority does not have a right to violate the rights of a peaceful minority even if it is genetically superior. If would be like banning sex because it increases the risk of STDs, so that even those smart enough to practice safe sex in marriage, would be considered in violation of the law. There is something irrational going on here with science helping to feed the irrational.

[InfiniteNow]

Tell me HB, is the law preventing people from eating them or is it preventing restaurants from using them? I do not think your violation of civil rights argument holds water, and also struggle to see what benefit trans fats would offer to those with "genetic superiority."

[Michaelangelica]

 

What this means is that laws against trans fats will discriminate against those who can tolerate trans fats in their diets. This is a violation of civil rights. In other words, the majority does not have a right to violate the rights of a peaceful minority even if it is genetically superior.

Trans Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health

Which foods contain trans fatty acids?

 

Trans fats are produced commercially in large quantities to harden vegetable oils into shortening and margarine. Food manufacturers also use partial hydrogenation of vegetable oil to destroy some fatty acids, such as linolenic and linoleic acid, which tend to oxidize, causing fat to become rancid with time. The oils used to cook french fries and other fast food are usually this kind of partially hydrogenated oil, containing trans fats.

Commercial baked goods frequently include trans fats to protect against spoilage.

A small amount of trans fat is also produced in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle, so that low levels of these isomers are found in dairy and beef fat.

 

What are the arguments for listing trans fat separately from saturated fat?

 

The combined results of metabolic and epidemiologic studies strongly support an adverse effect of trans fat on risk of CHD. Furthermore, two independent methods of estimation indicate that the adverse effect of trans fat is stronger than that of saturated fat. By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,0000 premature deaths annually.

These reductions are higher than what could be achieved with realistic reductions in saturated fat intake.