Trans-fats banned in California

[Dumpy Dooby]

Trans-fats banned in California

California has become the first US state to ban restaurants and food retailers from using trans-fats, which are linked to coronary heart disease.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the new legislation, which will take effect in 2010, represented a "strong step toward creating a healthier future".

Violations will incur fines of between $25 (£13) and $1,000 (£502).

Trans-fats are chemically altered vegetable oils, used to give processed foods a longer shelf-life.

Some cities, like New York City, Philadelphia and Seattle, have already banned the fats. Many food makers and restaurant chains have also been experimenting with replacements for oils and foods that contain them.

'Tremendous benefit'

Trans-fats are produced artificially in a process called hydrogenation which turns liquid oil into solid fat.

They can be used for frying or baking, or put into processed foods and ready-made mixes for cakes and drinks like hot chocolate.

Trans-fats are used because they are cheap, add bulk to products, have a neutral flavour and give products a long shelf-life.

TRANS-FATS

• They are partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, turning oily foods into semi-solid foods
• Used to extend shelf life of products
• Put into pastries, cakes, margarine and some fast foods
• Can raise levels of "bad" cholesterol
• Even a small reduction in consumption can cut heart disease
• They have no nutritional benefit

The US Food and Drug Administration estimates that on average, Americans eat 4.7lb (2.14kg) of trans-fats each year. A review by the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 concluded that there was a strong connection between the consumption of trans-fats and coronary heart disease. It found they boosted "bad" cholesterol levels in the body.

The review said that eliminating artificial trans-fats from the food supply could prevent between six and 19% of heart attacks and related deaths each year.

The legislation signed by Mr Schwarzenegger will ban from 1 January 2010 the use of trans-fats in oil, shortening and margarine used in spreads or for frying.

The president of the California Academy of Family Physicians, Jeffrey Luther, said that the law, "when it finally takes effect, will be a tremendous benefit", adding that there was no safe level of consumption, as with cigarettes.

The California Restaurant Association opposed the ban, but a spokesman said that it had no plans to challenge it in the courts, in part because some restaurants have already begun to phase out trans-fats to satisfy customers.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7526624.stm

[Dumpy Dooby]

Here were my responses on another forum regarding this issue. Feel free to debate any of these points here.

• Lots of idiots out there. You'll also find quite a few people claiming that trans fat is worse than its alternative types of fat. They're wrong.
  
  ------
• These guys saw a 6% decrease in revenue and started getting 15 phone calls a day from their customers when they switched from those "tasteless" trans fats to those other "tasteless" not-so-trans fats.
  
  Healthier potato chip? Better ask customers first
  
  The mandatory-health movement is seeking to curb restaurants’ use of trans fats, often by way of lawsuit-filing (see Jun. 14) and legislation (e.g., “Alderman proposes trans fat ban”, AP/Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph, Jun. 30, on Chicago alderman Edward Burke). So why don’t foodmakers just do the right thing and banish the offending ingredients? Parkersburg, W. Va.-based Mister Bee, the only producer of potato chips in West Virginia, found out the hard way when it replaced its hydrogenated oils with healthier cottonseed oil in its frying formula. It soon backed off after a 6 percent drop in sales and a steady flow of angry calls from buyers. The “new chip drew immediate reactions from customers who said if they wanted healthy, they wouldn’t be eating chips. Fans of the old chips said the new chip was darker in color, greasier and left an aftertaste. Mister Bee President Alan Klein acknowledged there was a ‘noticeable difference’ in the new chip’s taste after being in the package for a couple of days. The company tried modifying its recipe by using different oils, but consumers still didn’t like the new chip.” (”Customers Pan ‘Healthy’ Potato Chips”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 19).
  
  Here's a San Francisco Chronicle article on it: Customers Pan 'Healthy' Potato Chips
  
  ------
• FDA/CFSAN - Questions and Answers about Trans Fat Nutrition Labeling
  
  
  
  Q: Should trans fat be eliminated from the diet?
  
  A: No. According to experts, eliminating trans fat completely from the diet would require such extraordinary dietary changes (e.g., elimination of foods, such as dairy products and meats that contain trans fatty acids) that eliminating trans fat could cause an inadequate intake of some nutrients and create health risks.
  
  ------
• FR Doc 03-17525
  
  After spending years reviewing all available evidence on trans fats, the FDA said in the above 260-page ruling that any fears of a public health concern from the small amounts of trans fats in our diets were not supported by the evidence. These fatty acids haven't been shown to be better or worse than any other dietary fat. The FDA expert panel specifically stated that trans fats need not be eliminated from the diet and they refused to establish a daily recommended intake due to lack of evidence.
  
  ------
• According to this Harvard study, trans fat consumption has not changed since the 1960s.
  
  ------
• Originally Posted by Rayn

  heart disease is the leading cause of death in the united states ...

  Overall mortality from heart disease has dropped by half since 1960.
  
  Deaths by Major Causes, 1960?2005 — Infoplease.com

And here's a summary of my posts:

Not only have I demonstrated that trans fats are not less healthy than non-trans fats, I have also demonstrated that there have been reports of people noticing a difference in taste when companies switch from trans fats to alternatives, especially when the food product has been opened. Additionally, I have demonstrated that per capita consumption of trans fats in America has gone unchanged for the past 50 years while average life expectancy has gone up by 7 years and mortality from heart disease has dropped in half in that same time period.

[Angus_Aboot]

Transfacism!

[7960]

this is legislative trickery and/or deceit


when they did this in (was it MA or NY?) someone was on TV saying the industry was moving away from trans-fats because some alternative way to make the product was easier/cheaper (and didn't involve trans-fats), and because there was evidence that trans-fats were not so healthy.

so someone in the legislature saw a political move....... "BAN TRANS-FATS BECAUSE THEY'RE UNHEALTHY!" and he got to write a law that he can now claim "Forced the industry to stop using unhealthy trans-fats!"

Win/win for him, the food industry was going that way anyway so it wasn't a big deal for them, people end up with an alternative that may or may not be better for them.

[Ardentfrost]

Not that I agree with banning anything... imo, the people should be more educated, and it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to force people into healthy eating practices...

But to discount all science with examples of bad science is insanity.

How about this? Trans Fat Leads To Weight Gain Even On Same Total Calories, Animal Study Shows

Given no difference in caloric intake, transfat intake changed abdominal shape whereas other fats did not. It suggests one reason behind the apple-shaped body. Additionally, transfats increase LDL levels (heart problems aside, LDL doesn't add to cell membrane health like HDL does), and introduces oxidized fats into your body (the source of free radicals).

Bad science aside, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that trans fat isn't bad for you at all... at least, not since the 90's when everyone was saying "eat margarine instead of butter!"

No matter how you cut it, I think anyone can agree that a "natural" approach to fitness is going to be good. Trans fats are not natural. You'll never pick an apple off the tree and it have trans fat in it (partially because apples don't contain fat, but it's just a metaphor)

But again, this does NOT mean that it is ok for CA to ban transfat. This is no different than a complete ban of smoking. It is the government going into somebody's home and telling them what they are and are not allowed to do with/to themselves.

Unacceptable.

[WickedLou9]

It doesn't suprise me that they did this in california.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Not that I agree with banning anything... imo, the people should be more educated, and it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to force people into healthy eating practices...

But to discount all science with examples of bad science is insanity.

How about this? Trans Fat Leads To Weight Gain Even On Same Total Calories, Animal Study Shows

Given no difference in caloric intake, transfat intake changed abdominal shape whereas other fats did not. It suggests one reason behind the apple-shaped body. Additionally, transfats increase LDL levels (heart problems aside, LDL doesn't add to cell membrane health like HDL does), and introduces oxidized fats into your body (the source of free radicals).

Bad science aside, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that trans fat isn't bad for you at all... at least, not since the 90's when everyone was saying "eat margarine instead of butter!"

No matter how you cut it, I think anyone can agree that a "natural" approach to fitness is going to be good. Trans fats are not natural. You'll never pick an apple off the tree and it have trans fat in it (partially because apples don't contain fat, but it's just a metaphor)

But again, this does NOT mean that it is ok for CA to ban transfat. This is no different than a complete ban of smoking. It is the government going into somebody's home and telling them what they are and are not allowed to do with/to themselves.

Unacceptable.

According to the Department of Agriculture, 25% of dietary trans fats come from beef, milk, and lamb. To say that trans fats are inherently unnatural is "unscientific" and "bad science."

Also, I'm not saying that trans fats are not unhealthy. I am saying that they're not any worse than their alternatives, which they aren't. They don't pose anymore of a threat to heart disease or cholesterol than other fats that increase LDL levels.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

According to the Department of Agriculture, 25% of dietary trans fats come from beef, milk, and lamb. To say that trans fats are inherently unnatural is "unscientific" and "bad science."

Also, I'm not saying that trans fats are not unhealthy. I am saying that they're not any worse than their alternatives, which they aren't. They don't pose anymore of a threat to heart disease or cholesterol than other fats that increase LDL levels.

Whoa there buddy, not 25%, 2-5% come from "natural" sources.

TRANSforming the Food Supply: Report of the Trans Fat Task Force Submitted to the Minister of Health June 2006

Trans fats also occur naturally. They are found at low levels (generally 2-5% of fat content) in ruminant-based foods such as dairy products and beef, although the level in lamb may be as high as 8%.

Big fucking difference. Natural intake of antioxidants can combat the increased free radicals generated from that.

As for the different types of cholesterol and fats, Mark Sisson has some great pieces explaining the different effects on your body (as in, there are good levels of LDL and it IS needed in your body, but trans fat increases it too much). He searches out good science and tries to debunk bad science as it relates to nutrition.

The Definitive Guide to Cholesterol | Mark's Daily Apple
The Definitive Guide to Fats | Mark's Daily Apple

There's a lot of bad stuff out there that wreaks havoc with your nutrition, but just because other stuff is bad doesn't mean trans fat isn't bad. You admit it is, and I could argue HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is just as bad, if not worse for you.

Regardless, I think we all get to a point in our lives when we want to start eating better. The problem is, rarely do we know what that is. Transfat is now pretty commonly known to be bad, and that's fine. There's a lot of stuff out there besides it that are bad for us.

And, again, either way, CA is out of line here.

[C4Casey]

Banning a product that the FDA considers safe is ridiculous. I mean, it really isn't the government's responsibility to force people to eat healthier. What we know is that trans-fats may or may not be more harmful than traditional fats. WHO CARES!!?? It should be up to the consumer as to whether or not they want to eat healthy, and the government shouldn't have any say on the matter.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Banning a product that the FDA considers safe is ridiculous. I mean, it really isn't the government's responsibility to force people to eat healthier. What we know is that trans-fats may or may not be more harmful than traditional fats. WHO CARES!!?? It should be up to the consumer as to whether or not they want to eat healthy, and the government shouldn't have any say on the matter.

While I agree that it should be up to the consumer, even the FDA recognizes the dangerous effects of trans fats. They were slow to recognize it back in the 90's, but now they require any food with trans fat to list it so that people can avoid it.

They do say that saturated fats are just as dangerous as trans fat which isn't true, but it's the FDA... Most of what they tell us is straight up wrong anyhow.

[lew]

The irony is the government promoted transfats for decades as the safer alternative to saturated fat


For myself, I'm going to disagree with dumpy here ( ) because I don't think saturated fat is unhealthy at all; only transfats and excess vegetable oils are unhealthy.

[lew]

Also, when people usually talk about trans fats, they actually mean hydrogenated fats, not necessarily the natural trans fats.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Whoa there buddy, not 25%, 2-5% come from "natural" sources.

TRANSforming the Food Supply: Report of the Trans Fat Task Force Submitted to the Minister of Health June 2006


Big fucking difference. Natural intake of antioxidants can combat the increased free radicals generated from that.

As for the different types of cholesterol and fats, Mark Sisson has some great pieces explaining the different effects on your body (as in, there are good levels of LDL and it IS needed in your body, but trans fat increases it too much). He searches out good science and tries to debunk bad science as it relates to nutrition.

The Definitive Guide to Cholesterol | Mark's Daily Apple
The Definitive Guide to Fats | Mark's Daily Apple

There's a lot of bad stuff out there that wreaks havoc with your nutrition, but just because other stuff is bad doesn't mean trans fat isn't bad. You admit it is, and I could argue HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is just as bad, if not worse for you.

Regardless, I think we all get to a point in our lives when we want to start eating better. The problem is, rarely do we know what that is. Transfat is now pretty commonly known to be bad, and that's fine. There's a lot of stuff out there besides it that are bad for us.

And, again, either way, CA is out of line here.

Well, you're citing a different statistic from the Department of Agriculture. You're citing that 2-5% of the fats within dairy products and beef are trans fats. That's different from saying that 25% of all consumed transfats come from dairy, beef, and lamb products.

As for the second part. I think you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not suggesting that transfats are healthy. I know damn well that they're unhealthy. My position is that they're no worse for you than the fats that are used in its stead. Is Crisco significantly healthier now that it has rid its recipe of transfat? I certainly think not, and I'd be surprised to see an organization that expressly claims it's significantly healthier now.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well, you're citing a different statistic from the Department of Agriculture. You're citing that 2-5% of the fats within dairy products and beef are trans fats. That's different from saying that 25% of all consumed transfats come from dairy, beef, and lamb products.

As for the second part. I think you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not suggesting that transfats are healthy. I know damn well that they're unhealthy. My position is that they're no worse for you than the fats that are used in its stead. Is Crisco significantly healthier now that it has rid its recipe of transfat? I certainly think not, and I'd be surprised to see an organization that expressly claims it's significantly healthier now.

I would agree with this point, simply because no vegetable fats are healthy for you (with the notable exceptions of olive oil and the tropical oils such as coconut, palm, etc).

Any excessive use of polyunsaturated oils, especially with high imbalances of omega-6, will lead to disease and sickness, whether hydrogenated or not.

Saturated and monounsaturated fats ftw

[lew]

Also, Crisco still has plenty of transfat. It has hydrogenated oils in it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by lew

Also, Crisco still has plenty of transfat. It has hydrogenated oils in it.

This is what I was going to say.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well, you're citing a different statistic from the Department of Agriculture. You're citing that 2-5% of the fats within dairy products and beef are trans fats. That's different from saying that 25% of all consumed transfats come from dairy, beef, and lamb products.

As for the second part. I think you're misunderstanding my position. I'm not suggesting that transfats are healthy. I know damn well that they're unhealthy. My position is that they're no worse for you than the fats that are used in its stead. Is Crisco significantly healthier now that it has rid its recipe of transfat? I certainly think not, and I'd be surprised to see an organization that expressly claims it's significantly healthier now.

Odd that those two numbers look so similar yet are supposedly saying different things (conspiracy)

Anyhow, my links talk about how transfat promotes abdominal fatty deposits where as the more natural saturated and unsaturated fats do not (at the same caloric intake). Fatty deposits around your liver and kidneys are bad for you, even if you ignore the other side effects of abdominal growth.

There are two kinds of unnatural fats used today. Trans/hydrogenated fats (including partially hydrogenated), and the newer insteresterified fats (which go through a hydrogenation process, so maybe it's all the same anyway). In both cases, chemical structure is changed to promote shelf life and your body simply doesn't know how to deal with them. They have been shown to cause organ inflammation and contribute to diabetes (among other nasty side effects).

Saturated and unsaturated fats are needed for our cell structure, although too much of anything is bad. As lew mentioned, Omega-6 fatty acids are only good to a point and must be balanced with Omega-3's (imbalance is promoted by eating grain, which the FDA has been telling us is the foundation of a healthy diet for years )

Personally, I like the people (such as Mark Sisson) who look at diet from an evolutionary perspective. What did we evolve eating? Hunter/Gatherers ate lots of meat, vegetables (grain and tubers are not vegetables), and berries. It would seem that following that sort of diet would allow our bodies to use food in the way it was evolved to do so.

And it really does work. I really kicked up my evolutionary-style diet a couple months ago and feel so much better than I used to. I'm not tired during the day or after a meal (even if I eat a huge plate of ribs). I've lost 15 pounds so far and 2 inches off my waist without reducing my caloric intake. And I don't even have a desire for the foods I gave up (sweets, pasta, grains, potatoes, etc...)

I did give up HFCS a couple years back. I'm surprised I didn't get liver disease from all the Cokes I used to drink.

[motivez]

I think this is a long the same lines as telling businesses that they aren't allowed to allow people to smoke in their establishments. As long as people are aware of what's in the products they're consuming they should be able to make the decision for themsleves

Originally Posted by motivez

I think this is a long the same lines as telling businesses that they aren't allowed to allow people to smoke in their establishments. As long as people are aware of what's in the products they're consuming they should be able to make the decision for themsleves

I have mixed feelings about the government telling people that they have to allow or disallow smoking, honestly as the board is probably aware I've gone back and forth on it a couple times myself, but have hopefully for real this time settled against hte government making any such legislation as long as its posted that it is either a smoking or no smoking establishment its up to the individuals to decide.

Banning transfats? How's that even constitutional? Are we banning beef next? or fried chicken? or mashed potatoes and gravy? Have we lost our fucking minds in this country?

[lew]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Banning transfats? How's that even constitutional?

As much as I disagree with California doing this, it's certainly constitutional.


Constitution puts limits on the federal government. Not on states, with a few exceptions.


California can ban transfats all they want, just like they can legalize marijuana.