FDA Finally Moves to Ban Heart-Clogging Trans Fats

[RDS]

Start searching for zero trans fats food.

(NaturalSociety.com) You probably heard. The FDA recently announced that it will require companies to gradually phase out heart-clogging trans fats, also called hydrogenated oils, found in various junk food products. The Commissioner of the FDA noted that Americans have voluntarily reduced their consumption of this type of fat, likely through self-education, but the level of Trans Fats in our diets at large were still too high, and considered a public health risk.To keep it simple, trans fats are mostly fats that don’t occur naturally. Though some trans fats can be found in animals, most trans fats are made during food processing through partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fats. These manmade fats are responsible for billions of dollars in heart disease treatments, obesity, and other diseases in our nation ever year. Getting rid of these fats could lead to a whopping 20,000 fewer heart attacks annually.


Read more: FDA Finally Moves to Ban Heart-Clogging Trans Fats : Natural Society
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

 

[Guy Incognito]

Abolish the FDA.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's about time. The purveyors of fast food have been using this man made slow acting poison for some time now to improve their bottom line. Trans fats are not necessary and are unhealthful in any amount.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It's about time. The purveyors of fast food have been using this man made slow acting poison for some time now to improve their bottom line. Trans fats are not necessary and are unhealthful in any amount.

Psst. You seem to have accidentally checked the wrong lean. Yours says "libertarian," but that is obviously a mistake. You need to check off the box for "authoritarian."

 

[Phil_Osophy]

The fda is a total joke. If the fda really cared about safety, gmos, excessive chemicals would all be illegal. But they aren't.

 

[Northern Light]

Looks like someone stopped paying their yearly "stipend" to the FDA to keep transfat legal and "safe". Oopsies.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's about time. The purveyors of fast food have been using this man made slow acting poison for some time now to improve their bottom line. Trans fats are not necessary and are unhealthful in any amount.

Are you forced to eat there? The gov't can (and does) require labeling. How can you claim to be Libertarian and favor the gov't deciding what can or cannot be offered for sale? Perhaps the gov't should mandate that all IC engines be banned from cars - after all electric is "better".

 

[Rainman05]

 

[Dittohead not!]

Are you forced to eat there? The gov't can (and does) require labeling. How can you claim to be Libertarian and favor the gov't deciding what can or cannot be offered for sale? Perhaps the gov't should mandate that all IC engines be banned from cars - after all electric is "better".

First of all, "there" is anywhere, including at home if you go out and buy groceries. Now, if you hunt your own meat and grow your own food, then sure, don't eat "there."

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
― Ronald Reagan

"That for the preservation of these rights governments are instituted among men."

Yes, not allowing the processors of food to use something that harms my health in order to save a buck is protecting me from others and preserving my right, it is not protecting me from myself. It is perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy as well as the purpose of government outlined in the Declaration.

Now, if someone wants to start up a trans fat restaurant, offering heart attacks on the menu and advertising the fact, why be my guest.

 

[ttwtt78640]

First of all, "there" is anywhere, including at home if you go out and buy groceries. Now, if you hunt your own meat and grow your own food, then sure, don't eat "there."

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
― Ronald Reagan

"That for the preservation of these rights governments are instituted among men."

Yes, not allowing the processors of food to use something that harms my health in order to save a buck is protecting me from others and preserving my right, it is not protecting me from myself. It is perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy as well as the purpose of government outlined in the Declaration.

Now, if someone wants to start up a trans fat restaurant, offering heart attacks on the menu and advertising the fact, why be my guest.

First of all your last two paragraphs conflict with each other.

Many substances that are known to be harmful to human health can be pumped directly into the air (e.g. car exhaust) without fear of punishment. If cigarettes can be legally made and openly sold (if properly labeled) then why not those few foods containing trans fats? Plastic bags can be fatal to small children (suffocation hazard) yet they can be sold (even given away) without even a warning. We do not need the huge federal nanny state to ban all "bad" things.

 

[Dittohead not!]

First of all your last two paragraphs conflict with each other.

Many substances that are known to be harmful to human health can be pumped directly into the air (e.g. car exhaust) without fear of punishment. If cigarettes can be legally made and openly sold (if properly labeled) then why not those few foods containing trans fats? Plastic bags can be fatal to small children (suffocation hazard) yet they can be sold (even given away) without even a warning. We do not need the huge federal nanny state to ban all "bad" things.

Interesting that you would bring up car exhaust and tobacco smoke. the first has had to comply with more and more stringent smog regulations, and why? Is that to save us from our own exhaust, or to save us from others polluting the atmosphere? As for tobacco, it is no longer legal to smoke it in most public buildings, and why is that? Could it be to protect us from the second hand smoke of others? No one is saying that you can't kill yourself with cigarettes, after all, just spare the rest of the patrons of the restaurant.

and "those few foods" containing trans fats is quite a long list, some of them not actually labeled as having trans fats. Now, if, instead of banning them outright, any food containing trans fats were labeled with a skull and crossbones, then that would be perfectly acceptable to my libertarian leaning soul.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Interesting that you would bring up car exhaust and tobacco smoke. the first has had to comply with more and more stringent smog regulations, and why? Is that to save us from our own exhaust, or to save us from others polluting the atmosphere? As for tobacco, it is no longer legal to smoke it in most public buildings, and why is that? Could it be to protect us from the second hand smoke of others? No one is saying that you can't kill yourself with cigarettes, after all, just spare the rest of the patrons of the restaurant.

and "those few foods" containing trans fats is quite a long list, some of them not actually labeled as having trans fats. Now, if, instead of banning them outright, any food containing trans fats were labeled with a skull and crossbones, then that would be perfectly acceptable to my libertarian leaning soul.

I agree with labeling requirements, and maybe even a limit on the per serving amount would be OK, but since trans fats occur naturally in meat and dairy products an outright ban is a bit insane.

What Are Trans Fats? Food Sources and Daily Limits

 

[Dittohead not!]

I agree with labeling requirements, and maybe even a limit on the per serving amount would be OK, but since trans fats occur naturally in meat and dairy products an outright ban is a bit insane.

What Are Trans Fats? Food Sources and Daily Limits

Yes, and some arsenic occurs naturally in some foods as well. Should it be OK to use it as an additive?

From your link:

The Meaning of Zero Trans Fat

Reach for the product whose label shouts "0 Trans Fats!" and what do you get? Maybe some trans fats. That's because the FDA allows that label on anything with 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

As a result, keep in mind this advice:

1. Even if you're a conscientious shopper, it's easy to ingest a significant amount of trans fats without knowing it. A bowl of "trans-fat-free" cereal (that actually contains half a gram) plus a slice of birthday cake at the office and some microwave popcorn in the evening add up quickly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, and some arsenic occurs naturally in some foods as well. Should it be OK to use it as an additive?

From your link:

While it is true that trans fats can be present, up to .5 grams per serving, your health risk is minimal up to about 2 grams per day and the word "hydrogenated" in the ingredients list means that some trans fats were added - even if the label implies otherwise.

The Trans Fat Debate

 

[sangha]

I agree with labeling requirements, and maybe even a limit on the per serving amount would be OK, but since trans fats occur naturally in meat and dairy products an outright ban is a bit insane.

What Are Trans Fats? Food Sources and Daily Limits

They aren't trying to ban naturally occurring trans fats. Just the man made ones that are added to food products

 

[Henrin]

Abolish the FDA.

No kidding. People are far to scared though.

 

[Phil_Osophy]

You feel this is a victory? Tobacco companies are still shooting up tobacco with known harmful chemicals, thousands of them, and selling them for human consumption without a word from the fda.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You feel this is a victory? Tobacco companies are still shooting up tobacco with known harmful chemicals, thousands of them, and selling them for human consumption without a word from the fda.

But we all have to eat. No one has to smoke, and we all know that it is a major health hazard. Are they really adding to the danger of tobacco, or is it bad enough on its own?

 

[Phil_Osophy]

But we all have to eat. No one has to smoke, and we all know that it is a major health hazard. Are they really adding to the danger of tobacco, or is it bad enough on its own?

Ask some of my ancestors, the Cherokees.

Yes, the chemicals drastically add to the danger.
And we do have to eat, but the fda is obviously not on our side.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Ask some of my ancestors, the Cherokees.

Yes, the chemicals drastically add to the danger.
And we do have to eat, but the fda is obviously not on our side.

Banning adding trans fats to foods is being on our side against the makers of junk food.

 

[Phil_Osophy]

Banning adding trans fats to foods is being on our side against the makers of junk food.

Banning gmos and excessive chemicals is being on our side. But, they have dipped their toenail into the pool.

 

[maquiscat]

First of all, "there" is anywhere, including at home if you go out and buy groceries. Now, if you hunt your own meat and grow your own food, then sure, don't eat "there."

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
― Ronald Reagan

"That for the preservation of these rights governments are instituted among men."

Yes, not allowing the processors of food to use something that harms my health in order to save a buck is protecting me from others and preserving my right, it is not protecting me from myself. It is perfectly in line with libertarian philosophy as well as the purpose of government outlined in the Declaration.

Now, if someone wants to start up a trans fat restaurant, offering heart attacks on the menu and advertising the fact, why be my guest.

Your arguments work well for stricter disclosure of trans fats. If indeed the worry level is 2 grams, then amounts of less than .5 should be labeled as only 4 servings would quickly bring you to limit. However, as long as there is proper disclosure then it is the individual's choice whether or not to consume the food and any laws banning an additive would indeed fall under the "protecting us from ourselves"

 

[maquiscat]

Banning gmos and excessive chemicals is being on our side. But, they have dipped their toenail into the pool.

Banning anything food wise is not being on our side, it's imposing themselves upon our choices. When you look at things like air pollution creators and tabacoo smoke and such, you have a case to a point in that someone who doesn't want to consume the product/result is not getting a choice.

 

[Phil_Osophy]

Banning anything food wise is not being on our side, it's imposing themselves upon our choices. When you look at things like air pollution creators and tabacoo smoke and such, you have a case to a point in that someone who doesn't want to consume the product/result is not getting a choice.

I am not for authoritarianism. But its clear, the fda is a waste of money. They don't even require labeling for gmos. They don't require ingredient labeling for cigarettes. I support labeling and banning contributing harmful substances to minors.

 

[sangha]

I am not for authoritarianism. But its clear, the fda is a waste of money. They don't even require labeling for gmos. They don't require ingredient labeling for cigarettes. I support labeling and banning contributing harmful substances to minors.

I have to admit that being opposed to the banning of any food ingredients and being opposed to the FDA because they refuse to ban certain ingredients is one of the oddest positions I've seen anyone take on DP.

Almost as odd as being opposed to authoritarianism while opposing the FDA because they won't use their authority to force companies to label their foods that have GMO's in them