上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 386

[–]BlackRind 501ポイント502ポイント  (68子コメント)

Misleading title.

FDA Bans Artificial Trans Fats.

What are trans fats? There are two broad types of trans fats found in foods: naturally-occurring and artificial trans fats.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp

[–]5iMbA 74ポイント75ポイント  (51子コメント)

And the reason artificial trans fats are bad is because the process of creating them creates isomers of trans fats which the body is unable to metabolize effectively. So fat is stored in this form but can't be used for fuel. Trans isomers are not found in nature, so there is no natural enzyme present to do the job.

Trans fats look like an I while cis isomers (naturally occurring and also able to be metabolized) look like an L. Trans fats mess up the packing of fat due to their odd shape. Trans fats are known to increase risk of heart disease too.

Edit: I got the cis/trans shaped swapped. Cis is L and trans is I. Cis is bad because they can't be used for fuel, not because of their shape (although they will disrupt the correct packing). I fixed it though!

[–]jjjjohn 14ポイント15ポイント  (26子コメント)

Wait does this mean that it's fat you can't get rid of?

[–]infinity_QE 22ポイント23ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not can't but more difficult. The immune system will eventually break it down and rid itself of the byproducts, as it generally recognizes these molecules as foreign. Sometimes the foreign molecules are simply extreted by stool or urine. But there's a chance that some small percentage gets sequestered within adipocytes and stem cells before an immune response can 'catch it'. When those cells turn over, the body gets another chance to rid itself of those. An even smaller percentage of artificial isomers (ex: L-sucrose versus D-sucrose) stick around for a long time because they aren't affected by the intermediates and processes of metabolic cycles--this is the problem with creating artifical molecules not ever occurring in nature.

Lesson: don't put fake industrial chemicals in your body.

[–]veni_vidi_defui 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Surely there is a better lesson to be learned than what you wrote.

Don't know how to phrase it better though, but advising to keep it real isn't it.

[–]SekyEavan 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not sure what you mean, please elaborate.

[–]ArcFurnace 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

Calling them "fake" doesn't seem right. The chemicals certainly exist. Similarly, the fact that they are "industrial[ly produced]" doesn't necessarily make them bad for you.

A better summary might be "Don't eat things your body doesn't know how to deal with and that can cause problems because they're dealt with improperly", which captures the important points.

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is a good example. Our livers are perfectly capable of breaking it down safely. However, they can only safely handle so much at once ... take too much, and you will be in very serious trouble.

[–]sandscript 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Likewise, "all natural" doesn't guarantee anything positive. Socrates knew that.

[–]PrimeIntellect 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tylenol has actually beneficial effects and reasons to take it though, Trans fats, not so much

[–]VarsityPhysicist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

For clarification, fat here means lipid. It will not get processed for energy and stored in a "fat cell"

[–]EnigmaticShark 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Been a while since Orgo/bio chem but iirc trans fats are essentially useless from an energy standpoint, that doesn't necessarily mean your body lacks the means to get rid of them though

[–]cited [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Basically yes. Your body sees it as fat, but it's in a weird shape that it cannot get rid of.

[–]Xylth 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

You have cis and trans backwards. Most natural partially saturated fats are the cis isomer. The process of creating artificial partially saturated fats also creates trans isomers, which are the bad ones.

[–]Tritez 8ポイント9ポイント  (6子コメント)

Look up cis and trans double bonds, you've got them mixed up.

[–]SleepingSheeple 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

I looked up "cis," "trans," and "double bond."

It said I am scum.

[–]5iMbA 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks! I added an edit.

[–]bearsnchairs 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You still should edit out that cis fats are bad. Those are actually the good kind.

[–]5iMbA 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Will do! I should not make these mistakes…

[–]guyontheend 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can't be used for fuel. Does that mean they can't be digested?

[–]5iMbA 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

More like metabolized. I think of something like fiber as being indigestible, but these fats can be absorbed into the blood.

[–]starlightprincess [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I remember on cans of Crisco, it used to say "It's digestible!".

[–]Redraider1994 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

What type of foods currently have artificial trans fat?

[–]Arctyc38 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. They are by far the most significant source of artificial trans-fat out there.

[–]Krenolds [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's why they are partially hydrogenated. The process of hydrogenation can result in trans isomers (when the unsaturated fat started off as a cis isomer) rather simply adding hydrogens to all double bonds in the molecule.

[–]brokenExpensiveLapto [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A lot The trick is that the company can say zero trans fat on the label legally, provided that there is less than a certain percentage per serving. You have to look on the ingredient list for partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. If it is a factory packaged and processed food chances are good it has it.

Off the top of my head avoid pretty much all instant foods. Avoid instant biscuits,cake mix, frosting, pancake mix, microwave popcorn, most pasta mixes, cocoa mix, etcetera. You just have to read the ingredient list. Here

[–]Decembermouse [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I Ctr+f'd "frosting" and found your comment. It has an appalling amount of trans fats and I wasn't sure if they were the "real" or "fake" kind. I figured fake and turns out, yup, fake, I haven't eaten the stuff in years because of that.

[–]iam__ 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gross; theres nothing worse than cis scum!

[–]DJCzerny 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Check your trans privilege!

[–]Orphan_Babies 84ポイント85ポイント  (4子コメント)

You saved me the need to click for the article. Thank you.

[–]stoatflip 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now if RES would just implement a button to have the top comment pop up I wouldn't have to leave the front page at all.

[–]stillclub [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Ya who actually needs to read articles anymore?!

[–]redditaroni [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well I guess for this to work at least one person still has to read it.

[–]Z3F 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

It amazes me how few people realize that animal fat contains trans fat.

[–]NatWilo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good man. I couldn't believe that title. Thought this has to be bullshit. Now it makes sense.

[–]K3TtLek0Rn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was about to say wtf are they doing over there.

[–]Imtroll 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How amazing would it be if they were all banned though . They would never enforce it.

[–]XboxOrwell 34ポイント35ポイント  (20子コメント)

Many of us need to realize that "Contains 0g Trans Fat" does not necessarily mean there is no trans fat in the product.

However, products can be listed as “0 grams of trans fats” if they contain 0 grams to less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

[–]Phantom_Absolute 15ポイント16ポイント  (18子コメント)

Correct. I believe they are allowed to label that way because anything <1g is dietarily insignificant.

[–]Tibbel 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

<0.5 g is the insignificant amount, according to the FDA's labeling guidance document.

[–]machowarrior 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

They also make the serving size small and put like 50 servings per container.

[–]Phantom_Absolute 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

[–]chiliedogg 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

But those can still be unrealistic. You'll have obviously single-serving items (e.g. drink mix packet for a water bottle) listed multiple servings.

[–]sandscript 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

The fact that you can consume a product advertised as 0g trans fat and end up having consumed multiple grams of trans fat, is ridiculous and deceptive.

[–]fwipyok [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

why don't they indicate the inverse? how much can you eat before it stops being dietarily insignificant? Like... with soft drinks something like "not more than one glass a day"

...

we should be teaching proper nutrition practices at school :/

[–]chiliedogg [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

TicTacs were advertised as Atkins friendly because they had 0 grams sugar.

They're almost entirely sugar, but they're really small.

[–]buffaloyears 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Cooking sprays might be a good example of this. Some serving sizes are as low as 1/4 second per spray and have over 700 servings.

[–]dardanmm 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay.. but there's a reasoning behind it..

[–]AvacadosNumber 69ポイント70ポイント  (13子コメント)

Why are school cafeterias exempt?

[–]jimflaigle 49ポイント50ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have to get rid of the stock somehow.

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

Where did you read this?

[–]Falkjaer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

seconding this, couldn't find it in the article

[–]AbstractLogic 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow, this is extremely interesting. I would think they would start the ban in schools (to protect the kids of course!) and then move it to a wider population once it has become more acceptable.

[–]StalinWasAJerk 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because schools only have enough budget to buy the cheapest shit imaginable.

[–]terrymr 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because the school meal program is where we send food that would otherwise end up in the trash.

[–]DJCzerny 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because Turkey Twizzlers are delicious.

[–]Apoplectic1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Especially the chocolate bubble gum flavored.

[–]Not_Pictured 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rules are not for the rulers. If the state itself is hurt or damage by its own policies, it simply excuses itself.

[–]SinisterKid 111ポイント112ポイント  (5子コメント)

Seems like everyone is banning fats this week.

[–]safewoodchipper 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

I fully expect to see tin foil hat conspiracies of Ellen pao pulling the strings at the fda

[–]louis-wu 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is well past time to ban them. Our (U. S.) government began to push trans fats on us in the '50s, telling us how much healthier they were than traditional fats.

1) Now is better than never and three years is better than nothing, but three more years is too long.

2) Will they stop the practice of having .5 grams of trans fats per serving and calling the product trans fat free?

3) The article indicates they would allow exemptions. Why?

4) The article implies that manufacturers need time to develop alternatives. What is wrong about simply returning to natural fats such as butter and lard?

This is good. It could be better.

[–]Meat_Popsicles 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

For number 1 and 4, that's probably what manufacturers will do. But they needs time to develop new supply chains, news recipes, equipment, etc. That doesn't happen overnight. Three years is a big healthy margin to get everyone on board and avoid complaints or legal challenges.

As for #2, trans fats will no longer be "Generally Recognized as Safe" (not actually "banned"). That's pertains to their use as an ingredient, regardless of quantity.

As for #3, any manufacturer can petition a non-GRAS ingredients. Trans fats would be no different.

[–]darthdookie 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's okay, I know a kid on a bike that can smuggle it in for me.

[–]krp5150 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought of that episode too.

[–]SweetWalnut 184ポイント185ポイント  (15子コメント)

But they identify that way. Who are we to ban them?

I kid. I kid.

[–]chaucer345 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

As a trans woman, I must commend you that this joke was not at all offensive.

However, as a lover of jokes I must condemn you for that terrible pun...

[–]lecherous_hump 36ポイント37ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's a trap

[–]closed_betas 51ポイント52ポイント  (2子コメント)

500 word essay about how you can now belive it is not butter to remove your ban.

[–]joper90 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

I predict this will end up in SRS and they cannot take this as a well formed joke.

[–]JJWattGotSnubbed 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

sighs 500 word essay, due by the morning.

[–]mschwartz33 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

So offensive! We prefer the term trans-big-boned.

[–]ItsDarts 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

I thought it was Trans-Fluffy this week.

Edit sp.

[–]AbstractLogic 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

Didn't King of the Hill do an episode on this? They banned trans fats in Arlen and so a 'black market food truck' business started pushing trans fats. Oh, and Bill refused to eat trans fats because it was against the law so instead he ate a bunch of other shitty food and got fatter/uglier/diabetic.

Haven't we learned anything from prohibition?

[–]reddell 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, like lead paint prohibition and asbestos prohibition?

[–]SinServant [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Willing consumption vs exposure, so it would be more like marijuana prohibition. It would be exposure maybe in school meals, but schools are exempt from this ban for some reason, apparently...

[–]austinjb555 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I could have sworn they were already banned. Someone told me this years ago. Wtf?

[–]Phantom_Absolute 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

They were banned in New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, and California.

[–]StationaryNomad 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Trans fats are unusual in nature, and weren't historically used in food preparation. But they were widely rolled out in the 1950's, and once something reaches wide distribution, it's really difficult to reverse. However, the data show that they aren't safe. Good FDA, and good riddance trans fats!

[–]redditizio 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I applaud this move by the FDA, but the cynic in me wonders what new artificial chemical the food industry will invent, the food lobby will promote, and how it will end up wreaking the same (or worse) havoc as artificial trans fats. All in the name of corporate profits, of course.

[–]drakmordis 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Suggesting palm oil as a replacement is shortsighted, as the palm oil demand has been responsible for terrible environmental damage in the South Pacific.

[–]Cr3dentialz 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's exactly like how American Dad said it would be!! Now they're creating a black market of artificial trans fat sales.

[–]Meat_Popsicles 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's is a small nuance that needs to be pointed out.

Frankly, the FDA isn't "banning" trans fat. The FDA will remove trans fat from ingredients Generally Recognized as Safe (also called the GRAS list). Given the now extensive evidence of trans fat's connection with coronary heart disease, diabetes, and obesity (at a level greater than plain old saturated fat), I think this is justified. Ingredients that are not GRAS could still be used, but manufacturers must submit a petition to the FDA justifying their inclusion, demonstrating contextual safety, and getting a waiver. For example, if McDonald's is willing to go through this process, they could still used trans fats in the fryer (except they've spent several years slowly eliminating it).

[–]Giles15 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

This is such a bad use of the English language

There’s no longer a scientific consensus that partially hydrogenated oils, the main source of trans fat, are generally recognized as safe, according to a final decision released Tuesday by the Food and Drug Administration. The oils are used for frying and in baked goods as well as confections.

[–]Robynator 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

I believe "generally recognized as safe" (sometimes just GRAS) is the FDA terminology for things that don't need to be tested when you include them in products for consumption. It's more of a legal term than an actual English phrase.

[–]sdfkhashhhahasdd 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's complaining about the awkward double negative, and redundancy of "consensus" and "generally recognized". "Partially hydrogenated oils, the main source of trans fat, are not generally recognized as safe" is much better.

[–]sandscript [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not really a double negative, it's just that the negative had scope over too many embedded clauses. Yeah, I'm fun at parties.

[–]Thorse 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

This isn't going to go well. When we cut back fat back in the day, food tasted like shit. Their solution? Add fucktons of sugar, which in and of itself is just as bad with what it does to your body (notice how there is never a recommended amount of sugar on nutrition facts, sugar lobby did that) as well as them pushing cheese down our throats in the 80s because they needed somethign to do with all the leftover milk after making skim milk.

[–]tomjoads [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Sugar doesn't replace fat, and sweet to something isn't going to replace the taste of fat

[–]palto76 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

He's talking about the "low fat" craze in many foods. The food tasted terrible when they removed the fat so they just added sugar. Sugar doesnt replicate the fat taste but it sure makes things taste better. And the sugar made the food even more fattening than the full fat versions.

His comment is pretty much a summary of the documentary Fed Up.

[–]tomjoads [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Your completely confused, sugar has been dumped into food for years , over thirty years ago sugar was known to be hi. Low fat and sugar are completely unrelated, making something sweet is not going to replace fat. Your confusing separate issues. The fact apple juice and pizza dough have a ton of exxcess sugar isnt related to low fat

[–]gym00p 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Doesn't that include peanut butter?

[–]RemusShepherd 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Many peanut butters use palm oil instead. They'll all have to use something like that now.

[–]Phantom_Absolute 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, food manufacturers will not be allowed to add trans fats partially hydrogenated oils to peanut butter.

[–]Valendr0s 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

They will be able to add naturally occuring trans fats to peanut butter, just not artificial trans fats.

[–]Phantom_Absolute 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Edited to say "partially hydrogenated oils" as that is what is being banned.

[–]mleon246 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How will this change its taste and consistency?

[–]Slimerbacca 10ポイント11ポイント  (130子コメント)

Enter people complaining about the "nanny state" rather than focusing on the good of this

[–]MothafuckaJones73 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd rather complain about the misleading title.

[–]Imapopulistnow 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think one can reconcile both. When something is determined to have negative societal consequences with little if any corresponding benefits, then, yes ban it. I would personally go as far as banning tobacco products.

However, when society determines that it must micromanage the actions of citizens, we are looking at a nanny state. i suppose a distinction in my mind is school lunches. Trans fat bad? Remove it. Meticulous guidelines on what can be served at each school meal? Punishments of parents who do not pack lunches in accordance with such guidelines? Nanny State

Perhaps it is just where one places their values...

[–]Velshtein 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then you should have no problem with the government banning alcohol.

[–]trepper88 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Like the "good" of the food pyramid the government came out with that was just a terrible diet plan.

[–]Slimerbacca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean, i guess if you need a food pyramid to tell you how to eat, then that is the least of your dietary worries

[–]mindfucks 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody wants to serve their kids shit that scars their arteries.

[–]poonhounds 2ポイント3ポイント  (18子コメント)

The only good of this is for people who are in favor of the "nanny state."

[–]Slimerbacca 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

Yeah!!! That or if you dont want lots of taxpayer dollars wasted on health costs for dumb people

[–]poonhounds 3ポイント4ポイント  (14子コメント)

we shouldn't be wasting taxpayers money on dumb people either.

[–]StalinWasAJerk 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

Just let people die in the streets from preventable illness! Libertarian utopia awaits!

[–]scoopdawg [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Trans fats was popularized by the government when they went on their "fat is evil" campaign. It's been the government that has been killing people through their bogus nutritional recommendations.

[–]Slimerbacca 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well hooray! this helps!

[–]scoopdawg [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Then let's ban alcohol and cigarettes while we are at it. Combined they kill a shit ton of people and incur a ton of medical costs.

[–]Aqua-Tech 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

My favorite part is when they estimate it will save "thousands of lives a year".

So why not ban ALL trans fats? Why didn't this happen 20 years ago when the research was already conclusive? Why are you giving companies worth billions three years to comply while "thousands of people a year" are dying? Three more years of that?

Edit: Please stop lecturing me on natural trans fats, I have learned something today but I don't need 20 more people who can't keep reading to tell me the same thing...

[–]BrewingHeavyWeather 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

So why not ban ALL trans fats?

Because some trans fats are unavoidable, and some are not harmful.

[–]glacius0 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not only are some not harmful, but there are a few preliminary studies (mostly animal studies) that suggest that conjugated linoleic acid, and vaccenic acid, which occur naturally in animal foods may confer some benefits for heart health, diabetes, and a few other things.

[–]chowderbags 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

So why not ban ALL trans fats?

Well, it's not really possible to ban all trans fats without banning the consumption of most or all animal meat (which has trans fat in small quantities). So, even if we say that there's no "safe" amount of trans-fat and prevent the introduction of artificial trans fats, it's still reasonable to say that a complete ban isn't a good idea.

[–]MsAlign 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You will take beef and cheese out of my cold, dead hands.

Hopefully not literally.

Anyway, as a (semi) more serious answer, not only are most Americans not cool with giving up cow meat and dairy, but those are huge industries. You want to be responsible for closing down Wisconsin? Not to mention all the ranchers in California, Texas and Florida?

Yes, Florida. Shit tons of cows in Florida.

[–]scoopdawg [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Naturally occurring trans fats have been shown to be beneficial.

[–]iprefertau 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

only cis fats are approved by the FDA \s

[–]arunnair87 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cis fats is a real thing haha.

[–]EnigmaticShark 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It doesn't matter if an alkene is Cis or Trans, all fats are beautiful! InbeforeFPH

[–]maffick 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The LBGT community is gonna be pissed!

[–]ericdavised 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really happy to hear this! Go FCC and go FDA, now it's time for the legalization of Pot!

[–]damyankee184 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Food companies will be able to petition the FDA to gain approval of specific uses of partially hydrogenated oils if they have data proving the use isn’t harmful.

So, nothing is going to change at all...

[–]Meat_Popsicles 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It worked for lead. Probably going to work here, too. Most of these companies have the wheels in motion, anyway.

[–]scoopdawg [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In the article they mention that most of the food manufacturers have already moved away from trans fats.

[–]musicaltoes 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is confusing for me--I don't understand variations of fats. Does this impact things like Crisco or other fast food frying options? I'm wondering how this will change service food providers, and what they will need to do? Does this impact them at all?

[–]tomjoads [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Go back to using regular fry oil like they use to

[–]danomano [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Can you give some examples of items containing Artificial trans fats?

[–]Chessmasterrex [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Vegetable Shortening and things you can make out of it, (pie crusts, biscuits, )... Some things that are deep fat fried in it, (chicken, donuts, french fries) Crackers, some ice cream and so on.. Now it's important to realize that lots of places have already switched up using some non-trans alternative. I'd keep an eye out on the cheaper products out there that aren't name brand.

[–]nurb101 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Natural fats like lard make all those things even better

[–]jdavrie [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What common products would be affected by this? I thought that trans fats had virtually disappeared in American grocery stores, but maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[–]nurb101 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Artificial shit being banned is fine by me

[–]johnny_depps_yorkie [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I was under the impression that trans fats were banned several years ago ( http://gizmodo.com/trans-fats-what-they-are-and-why-the-fda-is-finally-b-1460251061 )when all of my favorite snakes suddenly started tasting worse ( http://healthland.time.com/2013/11/07/7-foods-that-wont-be-the-same-if-trans-fats-are-banned/ )and boldly stated "no trans fats" on their labels.

on that note, i kind of already assumed my nacho cheese in a can wasn't all that healthy to begin with. but i preferred the way it used to taste.

[–]AllSeeingGoatWizard [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As a Canadian? RIP the taste of your fast food...

[–]webchimp32 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Cue round two of the fat hate bans

[–]Falkjaer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Food companies will be able to petition the FDA to gain approval of specific uses of partially hydrogenated oils if they have data proving the use isn’t harmful.

This part makes me suspicious. Overall a good move though.

[–]starlightprincess [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hopefully the USDA ingredient database will start adding that info to their tables. Currently with most items, you can only find out how much trans fat is in them by adding up all the grams of the types of fats and then subtracting that number from the "total fat" number. If something has less than .5 grams of trans fats per serving, then the label can state it as zero.

[–]Selpai [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The FDA hasn't banned all trans-fats, they've banned hydrogenated oils. Food manufacturers will do what they have always done, to avoid labeling requirements, and include their trans fats as emulsifiers (mono- & di- glycerides). Really, nothing has changed. The FDA is simply encouraging product manufacturers to change their labeling, because of bad press. No one is being protected by this, just deceived.

[–]DLFHTLR [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Like they couldn't get more blatant with their transphobic fat shaming. The FDA is a bunch of shitlords.