NYC Bans Trans Fat!! - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

NYC Bans Trans Fat!!

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Coppermine » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:22 pm

RugbyD wrote:as a side note, things fried in lard taste much better than if they were fried in hydrogenated oils. if you are going to take the plunge, do it the right way. :-)


You're talking like you're from Pennsylvania
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby RugbyD » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:35 pm

Coppermine wrote:
RugbyD wrote:as a side note, things fried in lard taste much better than if they were fried in hydrogenated oils. if you are going to take the plunge, do it the right way. :-)


You're talking like you're from Pennsylvania

Then Pennsylvanias know how to do at least 2 things extremely well: at fried food and throw batteries. :-b
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:53 pm

RugbyD wrote:you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


this isnt really about you or me. its about joe six pick, cletus the slack jawed yocal, and whatever other name you have for the average consumer that doesnt know what partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is.

its still deceptive, even to people like you and me that know what to look for. in the US, anything less than 0.5 grams of trans fat can legally be labeled as having no trans fat. to get to this level, companies increase the saturated fat and/or reduce the suggested serving size to something that contains 0.49 grams of trans fat when the common serving size might in fact contain a couple grams of trans fat. a couple extra grams per day can greatly increase the risk of heart disease.

RugbyD wrote:if people choose to use lead paint even if they are fully aware of the danger, so be it. for whatever reason, they are content with the risk so they deserve what's coming to them.


what would they paint their houses with? there were scant few alternatives until the government mandated the change. lead based paint was known to be a health hazzard as long ago as 1910. it wasnt banned until the 70's. so everyone that suffered ill health due to lead based paint between 1910 and 1970 was an idiot that had it coming?

of course they are, and more power to them. i would fight like hell if the govt wanted me to redo all my packaging for someting that is already clearly listed on my packaging. the listing for trans fats is clear as day. look for one simple word: hydrogenated. there is no hiding it. its right there in the ingredients section. no funny business anywhere. if this is insufficient, then why bother at all with the whole Nutrition Facts section? people requesting this so-called better labeling on packaging are doing it out of pure laziness, not because there is actually something to bitch about. its right there on the box.


redo all the packaging? they added one line. for what possible reason would corporations fight for a decade to avoid adding one line? the labeling didnt become clear until january 1, 2006. prior to that time companies werent required to separately list trans fat. the general public didnt really understand the different terms used. why did companies use different terms for trans fats? thats the funny business. thats the scandal. they didnt want people to know the amounts so they called it other names. they called it partially hydrogenated oil or vegetable shortening. why did it take ten years for them to label their products in a manner that the average consumer would understand?

how can something be a scandal if it is so easy to identify and put down? it has no physically addictive properties. i don't recall companies funding bogus studies that show it wasn't bad for you. i don't see any trans fat health effect deniers making a stink. what am i missing that this is so nefarious?


because its only recently (1/1/06) that it became easy to identify. the real scandalous years were the 90's. corporations didnt lie and say trans fats were safe, rather, they tried to obscure the presence and amounts of trans fats in their products. companies knew trans fats were dangerous and had alternatives at hand but did not make any serious attempts to reduce the trans fats. even now, some companies complain that they cant possibly make the change despite successfully making the change in countries that have more strict trans fat demands. i just dont understand how someone can know the history of it and think there wasnt some deliberate deception on behalf of the corporations which had the sole purpose of helping the bottom line at the expense of the health of the general public.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby RugbyD » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:46 pm

another round, barkeep! :-)

j_d_mcnugent wrote:
RugbyD wrote:you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


this isnt really about you or me. its about joe six pick, cletus the slack jawed yocal, and whatever other name you have for the average consumer that doesnt know what partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is.

i can't imagine the average consumer has not heard of this. maybe the uber-sub-average at the very best. i take in a very very small percentage of visual and audio broadcast media as compared to the average consumer and it feels like i can't hear about it enough. if people choose to not react to something that concerns their health or tune it out or whatever, tough nuts, its their choice.

its still deceptive, even to people like you and me that know what to look for. in the US, anything less than 0.5 grams of trans fat can legally be labeled as having no trans fat. to get to this level, companies increase the saturated fat and/or reduce the suggested serving size to something that contains 0.49 grams of trans fat when the common serving size might in fact contain a couple grams of trans fat. a couple extra grams per day can greatly increase the risk of heart disease.

given that trans fats are naturally present in small quantities, a couple of extra grams over an extended period of time is what becomes a health risk. screwing with the serving size has no bearing on the ingredient listings. it is there in plain sight.

RugbyD wrote:if people choose to use lead paint even if they are fully aware of the danger, so be it. for whatever reason, they are content with the risk so they deserve what's coming to them.

what would they paint their houses with? there were scant few alternatives until the government mandated the change. lead based paint was known to be a health hazzard as long ago as 1910. it wasnt banned until the 70's. so everyone that suffered ill health due to lead based paint between 1910 and 1970 was an idiot that had it coming?

i was responding to your hypothetical proposal to re-introduce lead paint. also, this situation is not comparable to trans fats. The entire time before and after the risks of trans fats were known, there was/is a multitude of other options. our entire conversation is centered around choice.


of course they are, and more power to them. i would fight like hell if the govt wanted me to redo all my packaging for someting that is already clearly listed on my packaging. the listing for trans fats is clear as day. look for one simple word: hydrogenated. there is no hiding it. its right there in the ingredients section. no funny business anywhere. if this is insufficient, then why bother at all with the whole Nutrition Facts section? people requesting this so-called better labeling on packaging are doing it out of pure laziness, not because there is actually something to bitch about. its right there on the box.

redo all the packaging? they added one line. for what possible reason would corporations fight for a decade to avoid adding one line? the labeling didnt become clear until january 1, 2006. prior to that time companies werent required to separately list trans fat. the general public didnt really understand the different terms used. why did companies use different terms for trans fats? thats the funny business. thats the scandal. they didnt want people to know the amounts so they called it other names. they called it partially hydrogenated oil or vegetable shortening. why did it take ten years for them to label their products in a manner that the average consumer would understand?

any change is redundant and unnecessary. there's no reason to acquiesce. companies have always been required to separately list trans fats in the ingredients section simply as the ingredient it is, just like any other ingredient. if anything, the term 'trans fats' is the most misleading thing to put in the ingredients list. 'partially hydrogenated oil' is the 100% accurate name. not only that, the words 'partially' and 'hydrogenated' stand out like a sore thumb compared to most other ingredients. 'vegetable shortening' is an incredibly common term and once the effects of TFs were known the same people broadcasting the news were plenty informative of what was what as far as i can recall.

because its only recently (1/1/06) that it became easy to identify. the real scandalous years were the 90's. corporations didnt lie and say trans fats were safe, rather, they tried to obscure the presence and amounts of trans fats in their products

i refer back to the ever-present ingredients list. always been there.

companies knew trans fats were dangerous and had alternatives at hand but did not make any serious attempts to reduce the trans fats.

why should they? people are responsible for what goes in their mouth, not anybody else. there is a choice.

even now, some companies complain that they cant possibly make the change despite successfully making the change in countries that have more strict trans fat demands
.
unsure if you're referring to content or labelling changes.

i just dont understand how someone can know the history of it and think there wasnt some deliberate deception on behalf of the corporations which had the sole purpose of helping the bottom line at the expense of the health of the general public.

all i can say is that the information has always been there. the general public is responsible for their own health and must take responsibility for knowing what goes into their body (Bonds excluded ;-7 ). This is as easy as looking at the ingredients. I'm also not a huge believer in the presumed ill will of corporations. It definitely happens when the risks of doing so are small, but its simply bad business sense to intentionally harm your customers on a widely known issue, addictive substances excluded.

all it comes down to is that the content information was always there, even before the health effects were known, and the responsibility of food intake falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to make the right choice for themselves.

caveat emptor is fair doctrine when the information is there.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:29 am

i can't imagine the average consumer has not heard of this. maybe the uber-sub-average at the very best.


there is reason this stuff gets repeated ad nauseam. people still arent getting it. maybe they are hearing it, but its just not sinking in. this is not just a few idiots...lots of people. they understand trans fat is bad, they just dont understand how to look for it or how much of they should have.

i was responding to your hypothetical proposal to re-introduce lead paint. also, this situation is not comparable to trans fats. The entire time before and after the risks of trans fats were known, there was/is a multitude of other options. our entire conversation is centered around choice.


sorry, i guess i was unclear. i was drawing a parallel to a situation in which the general public was extremely slow in responding to a known threat. a situation that was only changed by government legislation. that change might not have happened for quite a while longer if we waited for corporations to respond.

in a sense, i agree with you. let the consumer choose what they want to eat. whats causing a problem for me is that i believe corporations are making it difficult for people to make a choice. people didnt understand the ingredient labels so they asked companies to make them clearer. companies gave the consumer the middle finger until the government required a change. even now, they using loopholes and being misleading. i understand you dont believe it is misleading. i can only say that i believe it is misleading, and in my experience a large percentage of people has trouble understanding the information that is presented.


screwing with the serving size has no bearing on the ingredient listings. it is there in plain sight.


screwing with the serving size is deceptive. when the nutrition label says 0 grams trans fat why would you bother reading the ingredient list? wouldnt you just assume 0 means 0? the nutrition label is designed to draw your attention. its outlined and offset in a different color. a reasonable person would assume that it contains the pertinent information. WE know differently, but i dont believe the general does. thats why they keep having specials on CNN and the local news.


'partially hydrogenated oil' is the 100% accurate name. not only that, the words 'partially' and 'hydrogenated' stand out like a sore thumb compared to most other ingredients.


but it is most commonly referred to as trans fat. thats what people were looking for. i would disagree that partially hydrogenated stands out like a sore thumb. i think it blends in with the rest of the mumbo jumbo on there. calcium carbonate, trisodium phosphate, thiamin mononitrate...as far as the general public is concerned the ingredient list on some of these products may as well be written in greek.

i refer back to the ever-present ingredients list. always been there.


as always, i contend that is deceptive. the nutrition information section, which is clearly designed to be a summary of pertinent info, didnt say anything about it until 1/1/06. even before then, only the presence of trans fat could be determined from the ingredient list, NOT THE AMOUNT.



Quote:
even now, some companies complain that they cant possibly make the change despite successfully making the change in countries that have more strict trans fat demands
.
unsure if you're referring to content or labelling changes.


i was referring to the content changes, and corporations being dishonest about their ability to make change as well as the consequences of a change in content.

all it comes down to is that the content information was always there, even before the health effects were known, and the responsibility of food intake falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to make the right choice for themselves.


while i dont exactly disagree, it has been my contention all along that the public has had considerable trouble accurately interpreting that content information. if you dont believe me quiz some random people in the grocery store. ask them if partially hydrogenated oil is worse than fully hydrogenated oil.



i think this article helps illustrate my point:

The Nutrition Facts Label to List Trans Fat: From Bad to Worse



Written by Dr. Fuhrman's colleague Dr. Steven Acocella, MS, D.C., DACBN, Board Certified Clinical Nutritionist, American College of Lifestyle Physicians, and a Diplomat of the American Clinical Board of Nutrition.

As of January 1, 2006 a new law requires food manufacturers to list the amount of trans fat contained in their products. This is the first major addendum to the Nutrition Facts packaging label since its inception in 1993. Although the manufacturing process of trans fat was originally discovered over a hundred years ago its large-scale use by the food industry began in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. During that time an alarming body of scientific evidence emerged directly linking saturated fats, like lard, tropical oils and butter to vascular disease, heart attack and stroke. The food industry scrambled to offer a healthier alternative to the vilified saturated fats and embraced trans fats as the answer. Many of us remember the ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter’ ad-campaign. In addition to the marketing boom touting the healthier trans fat containing products the food industry enjoyed further economic benefits from the greatly enhanced shelf life of foods made with solid trans fats (just look at the expiration date on a Twinkie); this fostered even more extensive use of hydrogenated oils. But the benefits of this bit of food magic would be short lived.

Although very small amounts exist in nature, trans fat is almost exclusively a product of the laboratory. Through a process called hydrogenation, less health-offensive fats like those in vegetable oils are exposed to high pressure and temperature and bombarded with hydrogen gas. This processing changes the chemical structure transforming the oil into a waxy, gooey solid. But science leaped too quickly from the laboratory to our kitchen when it starting serving up this gunk. Research in the early 1990’s uncovered that trans fat not only raises LDL (bad) cholesterol in the same way as saturated fat, it also lowers HDL (good) cholesterol. Furthermore, emerging science has shown that the altered chemical structure allows our bodies to more easily oxidize trans fat, an important step in the formation of artery clogging plaques. One example of the serious negative health effects of trans fats in our diets comes from the Walter Willett Nurses Study (Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School). The study of 80,000 women concluded that a mere 2% increase in dietary trans fat consumption increases a woman's risk of heart disease by 93%. Recently the FDA Food Advisory Committee voted in favor of recommending that trans fat intake be reduced to less than 1% of total caloric energy. This amounts to less than 1.5 g per day for a standard 1500 calorie diet.

Trans fat is lurking everywhere. It is extensively used in baked goods like crackers, cookies, pastries and cakes and in fried foods like French-fries, breaded fish, chicken and shrimp. Snack foods such as popcorn, chips and chocolate are loaded with trans fat as are sauces and condiments. Trans fat turns even some brands of healthy foods like tomato sauce and vegetable soup into artery clogging goop. And the next time you proudly go for that healthy salad take a closer look at that white sludge you’re about to smother it in. Most salad dressings are loaded with trans fat. And don’t forget that trans fat is commonly used in the food service industry and restaurants don’t list the nutritional facts for the foods they serve.

It’s very important to note that the new Nutritional Facts label law has a major loophole in it. Food manufacturers were able to preserve language in the rules that allows them to advertise and label their products as “trans fat free” if there is “an amount less than or equal to .5 grams of trans fat per serving”. This is called the non-reportable amount. The key here is ‘per serving’. Very often a serving size (an amount which is subjectively determined by the manufacture) is a much smaller portion then we realistically consume. For example, a popular ‘trans fat free’ golden cracker snack lists the per serving size of their product at “about 5 crackers”. After the new law went into effect this particular manufacturer simply reduced their serving size to stay within the trans fat reporting threshold. There is actually .5 grams of trans fat in one serving. They just worked backwards and based their serving size on .5 grams of trans fat. The problem is that if you’re like most of us, when you open that box and kick back with Jay Leno for some late night TV you’re going for at least 3 to 5 servings. You’ll be consuming an average of 2 grams (in excess of the FDA recommendation) of trans fat from a single snack that has a legal Nutrition Facts Label that clearly states – ‘0 Trans Fat’. What planet is this?

The new label law is confusing and misleading. Many American’s will consume what they believe are healthier products because they are advertised as ‘trans fat free’. But many of these products are loaded with equally unhealthy saturated fat or may have less than the reportable amount of trans fat per serving. The disease producing and aging effect of both trans fat and saturated fat is as clear as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Why try to calculate which one is the lesser of two dietary evils?

While the white coat geniuses at Kraft are back at the drawing board working hard on their next big chemical break though (like their last great invention, Olestra with its ‘anal leakage’ warning) I leave you with this simple solution to this dietary dilemma. The more calories you consume from natural foods the less you’ll need to be concerned about processed food additives. Whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and beans do not contain a list of unhealthy ingredients. And the last time I checked nature didn’t need a nutrition label loophole.




the comments after the article also help illustrate my point. people just dont understand the terminology.

Comments:

Written By:Elijah Lynn On January 26, 2006 08:03 PM

Trans fat is "Partially Hydrogenated oil", right? The article is great and I forwarded it to a bunch of friends but it fails to mention what people should look for on the label, specifically.

Very good article it just needs to say something specifically like, "do not buy foods with partially hydrogenated oil."

Thanks
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby acsguitar » Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:57 am

Now if NYC could get rid of their other "trans" Problem
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Phatferd » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:03 am

RugbyD wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, i happen to disagree with you on the relative ease of limiting trans fat in your diet.

you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


Actually Trans Fat should be 0g a day, none. Saturated fat should be below 7% of your total fat intake for the day.
You have no frame of reference, Donny. You're like a child who walks into the middle of a movie...
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Postby acsguitar » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:07 am

Phatferd wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, i happen to disagree with you on the relative ease of limiting trans fat in your diet.

you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


Actually Trans Fat should be 0g a day, none. Saturated fat should be below 7% of your total fat intake for the day.


So I bought these eggrolls in a bag and it said No Trans Fat except for natural transfat found in something or another...are they dirty liars
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Phatferd » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:08 am

acsguitar wrote:
Phatferd wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, i happen to disagree with you on the relative ease of limiting trans fat in your diet.

you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


Actually Trans Fat should be 0g a day, none. Saturated fat should be below 7% of your total fat intake for the day.


So I bought these eggrolls in a bag and it said No Trans Fat except for natural transfat found in something or another...are they dirty liars


Milk has trace amounts of trans fat, I'm not 100% sure what other things may have it that is considered healthy.
You have no frame of reference, Donny. You're like a child who walks into the middle of a movie...
Phatferd
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4058
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Highway 10

Postby RugbyD » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:56 am

Phatferd wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:well, i happen to disagree with you on the relative ease of limiting trans fat in your diet.

you need to broaden you grocery experience. it is incredibly easy. there is no need to completely eliminate trans fats, but limiting them to a minimum requires nothing more than looking at a label.


Actually Trans Fat should be 0g a day, none. Saturated fat should be below 7% of your total fat intake for the day.

as you mentioned below and I before, it is a naturally ocurring substance, albeit in small quantities. Also, your 7% stat is a bit misleading in the same way BMI is. Certainly not useless, but not blanketly impactful either.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 7:09 hours
(and 95 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact