Trans-Fats Banned In US

Skip the incoming details; just look at the results. Anyone pinching over an inch goes to a rendering plant for liposuction, with the products being converted into biodiesel. This would be covered by Obamacare^®, if only the dumbass Republicans^® would get out of the way.

Around and around and around it goes--
Where it ends nobody knows....

(I think this has been said before, but I don't recall where.)

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Vulgar/Rude/Improper Behavior: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I bet if I had access to the daily stock trades of our elected officials, I could become a millionaire within a few years...just like them.

Pop Secret is the most popular brand of microwave popcorn, and relies on hydrogenated oil to make the product. If you look at the 5 day span, it begins dropping rapidly right before the announcement.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Diamond_Foods_(DMND)

Imagine being a lawmaker, and having access to all of this information, (and even creating it), before the public has a clue. Everything from drug approvals to new EPA mandates that will help or hurt certain companies.

Naturally, there are no fingerprints of the elected officials on the trades...they are carried out by others.

yep, you make money on the loses..........

There are some records of trades... just not timely nor effective at preventing conflicts of interest.

Nice find.

These people really make me sick to my stomach.

If I have a heart attack, it's going to be from the stress that these money grubbing a**holes are causing me, and the destruction they are doing to the country.

When they're done in Washington, they move into lobbying.

I will look forward to the data being presented, 1 year after the ban takes effect, that shows 7000 fewer heart attacks in the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-popcorn-makers-could-face-long-expensive-road-012646696--finance.html

This is the obvious alternative. It's what made movie theater popcorn taste so good back in the old days...until the government told us it was bad, and it was removed.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/surprising-health-benefits-coconut-oil

Back to the post about Trans-Fat.

There was a time where eggs and dairy was bad for you.......... frankly it just comes down to moderation.

Instead, a government agency is trying to make it black and white...... and that should never happen.

Some saturated fat is necessary for good health. (I don't endorse all the info. at this site, but there is some good basic info. there.) The difference? Nuts are a good source, when used in proper proportions of one's daily regimen.

AS one gets into it, one discovers that plaque build up in you arteries..... actually works as like a band aid on a damaged area..... but too much of it then you have problems....... comes down again to moderation

Thank you for the response.

.

As to your question, I am no expert, but it has been suggested that trans-brains generally '... stronger anterior cingulate cortex to ventral tegmental area connection...' than cis-brains. My guess is that this is not the only difference.

The link you provided labeled 'The difference' seems to imply that trans-fats are equivalent to saturated fats.

.

While there are some benefits to consuming a limited amount of certain saturated fats, I know of no studies showing health benefits of consuming any amount of trans-fats. Completely eliminating all trans-fats is likely to only have positive health effects.

Can't contain myself any longer. Does breast milk contain transfats ? If that's a yes, then the implications of a ban could be interesting.

Digressing to mentions of cholesterol, the UK situation is a disaster of misinformation and changing advice by public funded bodies. Without the stuff a persons body would turn into a gloopy mess of collapsed cell walls.

L (for lousy ) Density lipoprteins and H (for healthy) Lipo's get churned out on mass, and guess what, The 'experts' are not exactly sure why. A few years ago, and at huge cost, doctors in the UK were adviced to dish out Statins like Smarties to all peoplke over 40. Anyone care for another guess ? Yep, the efficacy of that is now being debated.

There are some very convincing facts about using good old butter instead of 'healthy 'spreads'. Possibly a digression too far.

Just had my cholesterol checked today (I'm only 2 years overdue), and I'll phone-in to check results in a week. I honestly don't give a ****. The reason why I don't give a monkey's is because there is not clear correlation. If I can be bothered I take the statins (and folic acid, which supossedly acts like drain cleaner).

That phrase 'the worried well' comes to mind. I don't dismiss the severity of the issue at all, but every nutriton/health obsessed/daily jogging person I've ever met looks as miserable as heck. Do they live longer, healthier, and happier ? Haven't kept records, but I think not.

Kram, The FDA are mad. We have exactly the same here with organizations like the BMA. They seem to have a bad case of bottom up rectum, probably induced by corporate bribary.

/rant

'....Does breast milk contain transfats ? If that's a yes, then the implications of a ban could be interesting.....'

.

Does breast milk contain mercury? What about PCBs or neonicotinoids? Those are fun questions to ask but, much like the question posed, red herrings.

.

Is there a significant market for human breast milk in the US? Ebay.com strictly forbids sale of things like breast milk, and I am unaware of anything like an eboob.com. Infants generally lack funds, and mothers aren't equipped with meters at the pump.

.

I seriously doubt this ban on transfats will have the slightest direct affect on breast milk, whether or not there is or even should be any transfats in breast milk.

much like the question posed, red herrings

No, It's a straight question. Does breast milk contain the 'nasties' (ie- transfacts), and if it does then how can a ban be implemeted ?

1. Does breast milk contain transfats (I don't know, but think it does).

2. Can/should the FDA (or anybody) else stop use of transfats.

The answers to each question is 'yes' and 'no' respectively.

Eating herring is currently pimped as being rather good, it's an 'oily' fish in the currently considered good way. Best eaten straight out the water and onto an ad-hoc BBQ.

They're going after the E-cigs here too.

I've gotta get off the real ones. Just bought an electronic last week.

I doubt that trans-fats are in breast milk, and if they were, they would probably be good for the baby.

I was just wondering...;.over in the UK when a health scare kicks off its usually because politicians don't want folk to be thinking about other stuff.

Call me a cynic, but whilst we have global financial chaos and a whole lot of other stuff, some government funded body creates mass hysteria over a fairly debatable health index. Compare to debate over BMI and waist size. Yes, it makes no sense for the average person, and that's exactly why you have to wonder who that benefits.

Before anyone takes offence, CR4 is the only place where people seem to genuinly care. A lot of members are no longer here, simply because admin have a hard time in deciding what is/not topical topical to science/engineering forum. People get to lopggerheads, and that's it.

I guess that has jusrt blown my chance or persuading admin to give me a free CR4 coffee mug . I don't know how, but I will get over it.

Does breast milk contain transfats ?

No or maybe. Breast milk should not, as trans fats are man-made (and that doesn't mean produced inside a human, but produced in a factory). If it does contain trans fats, then it's because the mother is consuming them and passing them on.

From what I've read, trans fats do occur naturally, but in very small amounts in beef and lamb. I haven't found (or looked yet) for what that means in over all quantity...is it 0.00001 grams / steak? or 0.5 grams/steak? or more?

This is interesting. It looks like the naturally occurring trans fats from animals, don't do the same damage as hydrogenated vegetable oils.

I thought hydrogenated oils came into such popular use, because animal fat was supposed to be so bad for us.

http://www.tfx.org.uk/page62.html

Can I cook my popcorn in bacon grease?

I thought hydrogenated oils came into such popular use, because animal fat was supposed to be so bad for us.

The reason saturated fat (animal fat) was thought to be bad has a lot to do with the misrepresented data such as leaving off data that didn't support their hypothesis. by a few anti-saturated fat folks pushing the government to help us (by making saturated fats labeled as a health risk). They (anti-saturated fat guys) even eventually convinced the AHA to buy into this.

The bad thing about eating fat…… is that the fat actually stores pathogens…… when you consume the fat, you can be poisoning yourself and others.

Back in the 70's there was a packaging era that was contaminated ^{It's the 2nd item} in cattle feed……… and the pathogens consumed by a breastfeeding mother would also pass it to her child through the fat in her breast milk.

In this case, the problem with PBB's is that it's so stable, the only way to destroy it was incineration.

So wouldn't it make more sense to spend the billions of $'s developing a way to identify contaminated food sources early in the supply chain than to spend the billions of $'s developing alternative and artificial substances with which to feed the population?

The real push for alternatives has never been to protect people's health or make them more healthy, it's about profit. The producers can produce food more reliably in a factory than raising it in the field. The man-made food has longer shelf life too, thus losses due to spoilage go down. It helps the general population by keeping the price of food low, which in turn reduces the pain and suffering of hungry folks (especially children). The health and poverty are just rationales to support increasing profits.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against profits at all. But when manufacturers, researchers and/or the government distort the information in order to get the population to buy into something for the sake of profits (or power), that's a different story.

Furthermore, the argument some may have of lower costs food is short sighted. While, yes, this piece of stuff I'm going to buy and eat may now be lower in price and save me money now, in the long run, I may be paying much higher medical bills because of it.

I do not believe politicians believed trans fats would harm anyone as they were told by industry leaders and doctors that trans fats were better than saturated fats and that saturated fats were the cause of heart disease. The problem is they were making decisions about things which they didn't understand and which effected the entire country (health and economics) for generations.

That's the problem.

All of our politicians have become so completely corrupt, that nothing that comes out of Washington, (or any of the regulatory agencies), can be trusted to be factual.

Virtually everything that comes from them is designed to help or hurt a particular industry, and it's all politically motivated.

I recall that incident in Michigan,

Currently we have a program called 'from farm to fork'.... really took hold from the e' Coli contamination in spinach as an example. But in all programs there can be control point that are missed, that's why in agriculture HCCAP is now becoming more relevant on the farm.

but in Michigan's case...... it even before that.

In Michigan's case, that was human era.

As far as Billions........ It's a cycle, that would be happen because there has to be a solid ROI. A Government program like that would make ObamaCare rollout look like a walk in the park.

I'm not suggesting an all encompassing program...but some oversight by the FDA (even though I'm not far from Kramarat in my opinions of the them) may be useful. Regarding billions...I don't recommend spending it via government, but have the private sector compete to come up with a reliable yet reasonably low cost way for businesses to self check.

There are aspects of government that are essential; but for cryin' out loud, we have got to get them cleaned up!

I don't know what the answer is. I know that when police departments show signs of systemic corruption and abuse, citizen review boards tend to work well.

They are no longer "of the people, for the people". They have become a distinct and separate entity.

I would volunteer my time to conduct audits on any government faction, and there are probably lots of people that would do the same.

There are aspects of government that are essential; but for cryin' out loud, we have got to get them cleaned up!

Never happen....... no bureaucratic government department head wants you to pi$s on his side of the fence.

Having experience FDA, USDA, USDA-3A.... CDFA, WDA...... and a few more letters, I don't recall.

Not only do the departments over lap, some (inspectors) follow other department regulation (Pick and Choose) over their own.

but the criteria conflicts not only with each other but with-in the same departments also...........

You do need some type of third party inspector....... because unregulated this would go to the other extreme.......

But, I have to say this..........the way it is........ our domestic food source is relatively clean and safe...... imo, I believe we lost some tolerance to handle even a mild pathogen because of the sanitary conditions.

Where do you draw the line is basically what I'm getting at?

I get so tired of this crap.

The worst part, is that our own government uses our tax dollars to fund disinformation campaigns.

Two wildly conflicting opinions...one by PETA, and the another one that says the opposite. I know that humans have been eating meat since we've been here, and I doubt that our ancestors were throwing away the fat.

Anything in moderation, is my rule of thumb; lets ban the FDA.

http://www.peta.org/issues/Animals-Used-for-Food/vegan-diets-healthy-and-humane.aspx

http://www.livefreenow.tv/past-conferences/health/chris-masterjohn/are-animal-fats-good-for-you.html

I can tell just by looking at a vegan, that something is missing in their diet.

Now, that's against your rule..... lets take the FDA in Moderation.

Partially hydrogenated oil is the ingredient to keep away from. Fully hydrogenated oil does not have any known hazards to your health.

I think you're right - there are transfats in milk, but only in ruminents.

Ladies : Don't eat grass !

Kris,

As far as statins go, I am in favor of not using them. I follow the blogs of Dr. Michael Eades who has very little good to day about statins and does a good job of explaining why. Here's a link to one of his most recent discussions on the topic. In it he states:

Statins do not decrease all-cause mortality in the vast majority of people. Long-term studies have never been able to demonstrate that women of any age or with any degree of heart disease live longer by taking statins. The same long-term studies show that men over the age of 65 live no longer by taking statins. Men under 65 who have never had heart disease - and were talking actual heart disease here, not just an elevated cholesterol level - gain no longevity benefit from taking statins. The only small group of people who have been shown to benefit from statins are men under 65 who have had a heart attack. But unfortunately that benefit is small.

Multiple studies have shown that taking statins does reduce both the incidence and severity of heart attacks. But these same studies don't show any increase in longevity for those taking statins (other than the small benefit for men under 65 who have had heart attacks). Why. Statins simply trade one risk for another. Take them and you reduce the risk of a heart attack but increase your risk for cancer, diabetes, kidney failure, and side effects related to the drugs themselves. Many people die each year from statin-induced side effects. Despite what anyone may tell you, statins are not benign drugs

So for benefiting such a small segment of the population, does it make sense to treat a huge group of people and expose them to the numerous undesirable side effects? Why not just treat the population which the data indicates there will be a benefit? Because big-pharma won't make as much money, that's why.

Another bit of information Eades points out in this blog is that in the '60s and '70s cholesterol levels of 250 mg/dl were considered normal. So what's happened? There are no studies that have proven high cholesterol causes CHD (coronary heart disease) and that lower cholesterol results in a reduction of all-cause mortality. There may be correlation, but correlation is not causation. As you said, your body needs cholesterol.

Yep, the way statins get dished out is a medical and financial nonsence. Nothing more than a nice little earner for the big Pharma companies.

Yep, the way statins get dished out is a medical and financial nonsence.

Ritalin, Lipitor..... What's the next new hot drug... .....

Speaking trans-fat of which..... Here's an example of the cure may be worse than the ailment....

I believe Frito-Lays switch over to a substitute for trans-fat on their potato chips....... and the side effects were pretty nasty.......... Can't recall the exact words, but it is similar to explosive diarrhea.

Never heard of Frito-Lays before - the sound downright scarey !

Lays Potato Chips (parent company Frito)…….. Pretty big in the states here.

And we can't have anything like that without lawsuits Lawsuits

Olestra.

Kind of makes you wonder about the FDA approval process...maybe they should have eaten some.

http://cspinet.org/new/olestra.html

Well they fixed it........ how did they fix it?, you may ask........ they changed the name.... ........

"same stuff, only a different pile....."

Bureaucracy...... at its best and working for you!

There's a bunch of stuff that government meddling has gotten completely wrong.

Just recently, it turned out that fat people can be completely healthy...everything within normal parameters, and feeling fine.

A couple of years ago, it was shown that smokers are much less of a drain on the healthcare system than health nuts.

Why?

Smokers tend to die a little younger, and much more quickly. Health nuts tend to get old enough to get Alzheimer's, dementia, broken bones from falls, and end up needing 24 hour care...and yet smokers not only pay into healthcare through excessive cigarette taxes, but insurance premiums are much higher. It's all a scam.

Back in the early 90's working at the ship yard, the company had a health accessment.... For insurance reasons........ I was putting over 50 hours a week at the yard...... And was also doing 12-15 hours a week consulting with my previous employer. I was 6'-3" about 185-190 lbs..... I looked like death walked over me....... I was not only considered over weight but obesed........ If I was obese then....... I must really be disgusting now at 53.

I kept that accessment....(like all my accessments).....

I don't see how any naturally occurring trans-fats could, practically, be banned. If the ban only covers man-made trans-fats, it might not be such a bad thing.

Slowly, through attrition, people are getting wise to the fact that most pharmaceuticals fall under the heading of "the Emperor having no clothes." Health improvement is not a result of using the vast majority of pharmaceutical substances -- crisis management is a better description.

As far as what to do about cleaning up government, the problem reduces to a few critical components: decoupling the process from money and how to achieve real transparency. One lynchpin to releasing the knot is a truly free and aggressive media. That has all but been eliminated now. If there were a good and free public media arena, regular invitations to elected officials -- not invitations, but required appearances -- would help. I always thought it was a good thing that British prime ministers regularly appear before the House of Commons and get grilled. Only, I'd rather see all elected officials have to be responsible to a rotating panel of citizens and public advocates on a fixed schedule, with rules to prevent runaround answers and spin. That would be reality TV at its best. And except in the most sensitive national security areas, citizens (or citizen panels) should have similar powers as the IAEA/UNSCOM does, only it would apply to a large portion of files which citizens, normally, only hear references to. Correction, probably don't even know exists.

Unannounced "inspections" of documents, emails, etc. in elected representatives offices should be the norm -- a controlled Wiki-leaks on the public's behalf. I'm not suggesting it is good to disclose national security secrets. But way too much information gets hidden and obscured under that umbrella, when it is really politicians using the phrase "national security" to CYA/CTA. If there hadn't been such a loss of integrity in all branches of government, these ideas wouldn't even come up. That they do is incriminating.

But what's new? Those seeking power most easily get corrupted by same. The problem has existed as long as we've had governing bodies.

One of my favorite low-carb, nutrition conscious doctors (I've mentioned him already a few times in this thread) recently posted this in his blog regarding the ban on trans-fat.

I don't completely disagree with him, however, the use of trans-fats has already dropped to a very small amount of usage, due to consumer demand. So this ban will have a negligible impact.

We are seeing the same with high fructose corn syrup, (HFCS). It's the consumers that are driving it off the shelves and out of products, not the FDA, which is happily sitting on the sidelines as diabetes and other diseases continue to become more prevelant.

As a libertarian, the doctor should be advocating consumers taking responsibility for their own health, and what they eat, and not waiting for government to tell them if something is bad for them. As is always the case, it will be too little, too late, and will likely be moot by the time they get around to it.

'The Question it MOOT!!!!'

the use of trans-fats has already dropped to a very small amount of usage, due to consumer demand.

Really? While I agree trans fat consumption has declined over the past few years, most of what I see in the grocery still contains it. Do you have data? I don't, only my personal observation (and that of my wife who does most of the shopping).

Also, it is now easier to find HFCS free products, however, the HFCS products still dominate the market. I wouldn't say consumers are driving them off the shelves, but rather the consumers are demanding HFCS and Trans Fat free foods and the suppliers are responding (slowly).

I think at this point, the general public is still ignorant about what HFCS is and is more concerned about inexpensive products today than good health a few years (or decades) from now. As more people become educated, the demand for HFCS free will increase.

The problem is that the federal government has been involved in support of both the Trans Fat and HFCS industries and politicians get quite a bit of financial support from those industries. It's not a level playing field when it comes to fighting the HFCS and Trans Fat folks.

HFCS is still extremely pervasive. Transfats have been reduced in many cases to the level that it is legal to claim 0 grams or transfat on the the label (which is a ridiculous thing to allow.... imagine if that was done for something like peanuts and then someone allergic consumed a product claiming zero grams).

.

There is probably a new process or additive being used to alter oils to remain solid at higher temperature and lengthen shelf life. If that is the case, we probably won't know about any health effects for a decade at least.

It was one of the links in this thread, that said that trans-fat consumption is down to one gram or less per day, per person, in the US.

I think that people that feed exclusively on fast food and processed food are going to have health issues up the road, regardless of the trans-fats. People that make junk food into a staple in their lives, are asking for trouble...and I don't think the government can change that; well, maybe if they lock them up or outfit them with monitors that track their intake.

The basis for this ban, is that 7000 people per year die from trans-fat.

Let's not forget, the same government that wants this ban, also has pushed through allowing people to use food stamps for fast food joints, candy, soda, cookies....all kinds of crap; and those are the same people that have the only "Cadillac" healthcare plans...which is free. No premiums, no deductibles, and care on demand, wherever they happen to be.

An example of "good" government, is having companies list ingredients, and warning us about things that are bad for our health...while allowing us to make our own choices.

I'll never think that it's okay for bureaucracies to make law; and this is just another little slip toward a total police state. There are lots of things that we enjoy in moderation, but are bad for us in excess...and I don't want the FDA dictating my behavior.

I agree with you for the most part.

If the government would step away from supporting or promoting other food stuff (candy, soda, cookies, food pyramids, low-fat diets, etc), then I would gladly say they should not be banning trans fat....let people decide for themselves. However, the government has been complicit in fooling the vast majority of folks into thinking saturated fats are evil, cholesterol is dangerous and we need to be consuming primarily carbohydrates while supporting the sugar, corn and wheat industries and adapting policies that encourage folks to look for the cheapest foods available (fast foods for one).

So even though I disagree with government banning or regulating stuff people should do on their own, I'm not exactly opposed to it in this instance as I see it maybe having some positive affect in negating damage already done by the same government.

People that make junk food into a staple in their lives, are asking for trouble

I think you just hit the nail. It's astonishing how much junk/ready-meals stuff is sold. The marketing people have managed to convince a huge number of people that such stuff is healthier and cheaper than cooking something from basic ingredients. When stuck in a supermarket queue, I'm astonished by how much of that stuff people have in their trollies. I'm no saint, and occassionaly bung something in the microwave, but a whole generation seem to now live on it. Supermarkets exist to make a profit, and the best way for them to do that is in selling cheap fats and sugars.

We now have 3rd (possibly more) generation people growing up in a feezer-to-microwave world. Home Economics (UK terminology) used to be seen as a bit of a sissy/useless topic. If Schools were allowed to devote a bit more time to teaching such stuff then things might change. Give the average UK kid a basket of vegetables and they wouldn't be able to identify them, much less know how to cook them. Not a vegetarian rant - they wouldn't know what to do with a hunk of raw meat either. Schools are simply failing to teach basic life skills, and it's not even their fault. Our overlords dictate what is on the curriculum - the very same people who hold chairmanships in supermarkets and don't eat the crap that they sell.

I don't have a problem with them selling it. I'll grab something out of the frozen food section sometimes too. It's quick and edible, but not what I would call "good".

There are a lot of people that live on that stuff. I don't see it as the job of the government to try and stop them. If they die at 70 instead of 80...so what?

I like whiskey. Granted, a half gallon lasts me over two months; but it's bad for me and has no nutritional value...not to mention, look at the alcohol related deaths; they put trans-fat to shame. Will they make another run at prohibition?

Know what you mean, I sometimes grab a kebab on the way home. For some strange reason I've no idea what they taste like when sober, but it's great scoff at that time of night.

I think they figured prohibition was idiocy PDQ (even if it took a while to accept the fact), but killing off people early with fat makes good economic sense. In a way, prohibition was pretty good - it lead to lots of inovation in fast cars.

Hang on.....Two months for a half gallon ? That's just plain letting the side down (unless you have a lukewarm beer chaser with each sip) !

It was one of the links in this thread, that said that trans-fat consumption is down to one gram or less per day, per person, in the US.

I find that difficult to believe. There are too many popular products on the grocery store shelves that have partially hydrogenated vegetable oil in them. Don't rely on the label summary where it shows zero grams of trans fat. Look at the ingredients. The 0 grams of trans fat only means it has less than 0.5 grams per serving. I doubt few people only have a single serving based on the manufacturer's serving size definition. And I'm not even talking about eating at restaurants.

I don't know. I've never thought trans-fat was good, and while I'm not paranoid about it, I don't eat a lot of processed food. Not because of trans-fat, but because it doesn't taste very good, and if I eat too much of it, I don't feel good.

My primary source was microwave popcorn, which I ate once or twice a week. Now I've even eliminated that, and switched to coconut oil; cooking the popcorn in a stove pan.

Coconut oil is enjoying a huge comeback, now that people realize it isn't the killer that the government told us it was.