2410
2411

FDA Bans Trans Fats (bloom.bg)

Murican_Freedom1776 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]BlackRind 905ポイント906ポイント  (112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 172ポイント173ポイント  (81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 26ポイント27ポイント  (35子コメント)

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

[–]infinity_QE 67ポイント68ポイント  (13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 5ポイント6ポイント  (11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.

[–]higgs8 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the simple point is: If the human species didn't come across a thing long enough to evolve to deal with it, then it may be unable to deal with it. So anything that you only started doing recently (i.e. less than thousands/millions of years ago) may be so strange to your body that it might react badly to it without warning you. In some cases it deals with it just fine, but in other cases it causes problems.

For example, if we breathe a gas that doesn't contain oxygen nor carbon dioxide, we'll slowly die without ever noticing that anything's wrong because our body never had to evolve to figure out how to deal with a lack of oxygen that doesn't coincide with increased CO2 levels. For millions of years, every time someone suffocated, it correlated with increased levels of CO2, so your body only warns you if it detects high CO2 levels, even though you could theoretically run out of oxygen without high CO2 levels, if you breathe anything other than O2. But you would never breathe such a gas until recently. Such gasses are not "unnatural" - everything is natural - but they are artificial: you would not breathe them under normal circumstances. What's a "normal circumstance"? Whatever circumstance you came across regularly for the past several millions of years.

[–]SekyEavan 7ポイント8ポイント  (8子コメント)

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

[–]ArcFurnace 29ポイント30ポイント  (7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, despite its nature as a synthetic chemical. However, they can only safely handle so much at once ... take too much, and you will be in very serious trouble.

[–]sandscript 35ポイント36ポイント  (1子コメント)

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

[–]earthbounding 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is something we have to approach haphazardly; we don't know what our body can't deal with until the population has experimented with it. This applies, of course, to both natural and synthetic substances but the rise of industrialization and widespread synthetic substances has caused many problems. I think this has less to do with the fact that they are synthetic and more to do with the sheer number of different new chemicals we've been experimenting with, be them synthetic or natural.

コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]VarsityPhysicist 3ポイント4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 2ポイント3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

      コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

        [–]Redraider1994 8ポイント9ポイント  (20子コメント)

        What type of foods currently have artificial trans fat?

        [–]Arctyc38 20ポイント21ポイント  (12子コメント)

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

        [–]GekkoPie 9ポイント10ポイント  (9子コメント)

        So it's back to having to stir our peanut butter...

        [–]IamSpiders 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I've been doing this for a couple of years now, it ain't too bad, still tasty as fuck

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

        I just take roasted peanuts and put them in our Ninja. I should probably add oil, but it's pretty good as is.

        [–]peacockpartypants 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Teddie is worth it. A tip? When you put it in the pantry, put it in upside down. Helps distribute the oil and makes stirring easier.

        [–]Lyle91 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

        They have natural peanut butter that doesn't need to be stirred.

        [–]awj 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        So far as I know the "natural" Jif peanut butter does not have hydrogenated oils and is more or less stir-free. It also tastes pretty close to "regular" Jif. Not quite as creamy, but nowhere near as huge a pain in the ass as Adams.

        [–]modix 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        It uses Palm oil and is awesome. That being said, Palm Oil is currently an immensely problematic crop responsible for mass environmental wreckage throughout the globe.

        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

            [–]brokenExpensiveLapto 10ポイント11ポイント  (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 1ポイント2ポイント  (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.

            コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

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

              I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but what you've written is simply not true.

              Hydrogenation is a process of converting liquid vegetable oils, which contain many polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, to saturated fats. This involves heating them to high temperatures and adding hydrogen, so that the double bonds within the fatty acids are converted to single bonds until the fatty acid is saturated.

              The result is a more shelf stable and solid at room temperature product. Think of solid fryer oil (aka vegetable shortening), or American margarine.

              Now, anyone who's done high school chemistry will be able to tell you that when you have a fatty acid with a double bond, the double bond can exist in a trans or a cis conformation. The cis conformation predominates in unprocessed oils.

              Without getting too technical, in the process of hydrogenation, some of these cis double bonds are converted to trans double bonds, thus producing "trans fats".

              Consumption of these unsaturated trans-fats is associated with cardiovascular disease.

              So fat is stored in this cis form but can't be used for fuel. Cis isomers are not found in nature, so there is no natural enzyme present to do the job.

              Both cis and trans fats are capable of being metabolised by the human body.

              [–]Tritez 11ポイント12ポイント  (8子コメント)

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

              [–]SleepingSheeple 41ポイント42ポイント  (3子コメント)

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

              It said I am scum.

              [–]5iMbA 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

              Thanks! I added an edit.

              [–]bearsnchairs 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

              [–]Xylth 6ポイント7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.

              [–]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 10ポイント11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 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

              コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                [–]Orphan_Babies 116ポイント117ポイント  (8子コメント)

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

                [–]stoatflip 35ポイント36ポイント  (1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 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Ya who actually needs to read articles anymore?!

                [–]redditaroni 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

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

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

                I vote for you to be our official reader!

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

                If they have bullshit clickbait titles that mischaracterize the content of the article, the publication doesn't deserve the traffic and I'd rather just read that in the comments than wasting my time on their site.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  [–]lua_x_ia 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Small amounts of trans fats occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, including beef, lamb and butterfat. There have not been sufficient studies to determine whether these naturally occurring trans fats have the same bad effects on cholesterol levels as trans fats that have been industrially manufactured.

                  It is worthwhile to point out that these are not actually the same fats. The trans fats in partially hydrogenated oils consist of primarily elaidic acid and its n-8 and n-10 isomers, whereas the trans fats in meat and milk are primarily conjugated linoleic acid and vaccenic acid. So the question of whether they have the same effects is not some accusation of mysterious technological voodoo resulting from the hydrogenation process; it's about different but similar substances, though the latter occur generally in much smaller quantities.

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

                  What popular foods will be affected by this?

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

                  You will see changes in the recipe for most candy bars, frozen foods, some crackers, tortillas, etc. However there are alternative ingredients that they can use at similar prices. So there should be little to no taste differences and prices will only change by cents.

                  A lot of companies have already been switching which is why the FDA won't get that strong of backlash to this from the food manufacturers from this except for perhaps a few holdouts.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]NatWilo 1ポイント2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.

                    [–]Z3F 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

                    [–]cybexg 19ポイント20ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    It amazes me how those who think just because animal fat may contain small amounts of a trans fat that it is the same type of trans fat as artificial trans fats.

                    To be clear, Vaccenyl and conjugated linoleyl (CLA) containing trans fats occur naturally in trace amounts in meat and dairy products from ruminants (credit to wiki). But they have different properties than most of the artificial trans fats.

                    [–]thesugardealers 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                    I thought ALL trans fats were artificially created from unsaturated fats?

                    [–]Fallogenjor 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    A couple percent of the fat from cows are trans fats.

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

                    Nope, animal products (so both milk and meat) have some amount of it.

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

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

                    コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                      [–]XboxOrwell 64ポイント65ポイント  (37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 22ポイント23ポイント  (32子コメント)

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

                      [–]Tibbel 16ポイント17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 2ポイント3ポイント  (30子コメント)

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

                      [–]Phantom_Absolute 29ポイント30ポイント  (9子コメント)

                      No, servings sizes follow RACC created by the FDA.

                      http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.12

                      [–]chiliedogg 12ポイント13ポイント  (8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 16ポイント17ポイント  (5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.

                      [–]chiliedogg 9ポイント10ポイント  (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.

                      [–]sandscript 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Excellent point. You could literally market a globule of 0.49g trans fat as "trans fat free." Serving size:1. Servings per container: 9,001.

                      [–]fwipyok 3ポイント4ポイント  (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 :/

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

                      There has to be a limit somewhere, though. For many food processes there's almost no way to guarantee that absolutely no trans fat (or sugar, or whatever) is present.

                      The problem isn't that < 0.5g of trans fat counts as zero, it's that a ridiculously small quantity of the product "counts" as a serving. I have never seen someone drink two-fifths of a soda and put the cap back on it so they can have a flat soda later. If we want the nutrition numbers to mean anything, we need to shut down gaming them with portions.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                        [–]buffaloyears 5ポイント6ポイント  (11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.

                        [–]Fredrules2012 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

                        As long as you're not trying to fill up a cup and drink your cooking spray, I don't see the problem. It's primarily to prevent sticking, it's not a condiment.

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

                        I agree. As long as something contains <.5 g trans fat per serving, it is allowed to be labelled "0 g trans fat". I just mean that it could be possible with the same product, if the serving size was instead 1/3 second, to technically contain trans fat. It would be preferable for the brand to use the smaller serving size in this case.

                        [–]Fredrules2012 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        I don't think they get to choose the serving size, I think they usually follow the recommended serving size given by the FDA. I gave a gum example for someone. There's zero calorie gum, but if I eat the whole package then it has 45 calories. I cant complain to the company cause it was my fault, had I eaten the suggested serving size then it would have been nutritionless.

                        [–]chunkosauruswrex 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

                        Well pam is advertised as 0 calories, but the amount most people use contains calories, so the serving size doesn't match up to how most people use it.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                          コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                            [–]mschwartz33 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                            Contains 0g fecal matter (less than 0.5)

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

                            It's like how if my BAC is 0.5% or lower they generously round it down to 0% so I don't get a DUI!

                            OH WAIT THEY DON'T FUCKING DO THAT AT ALL BECAUSE I'M NOT A FORTUNE 500 COMPANY TRYING TO POISON PEOPLE TO SAVE 10 CENTS A DAY ON PRODUCTION COSTS!

                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                              [–]drakmordis 71ポイント72ポイント  (8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.

                              [–]youhatemeandihateyou 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I'm sad that yours in the only comment mentioning this in a sea of people making the same 2 jokes over and over.

                              More info:

                              http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/22/orangutan-experts-plead-for-australian-food-manufacturers-to-reject-palm-oil

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil

                              http://www.orangutan.org.au/palm-oil

                              http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/palm-oil-farming-poses-threat-to-apes/article6634213.ece

                              And a large reddit thread on the subject

                              [–]Geronimo2011 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

                              It's not the palm oil which is responsible. It's the politicians who destroy rain forests for - anything. For palm tree plantaions, for soy, for cattle.

                              [–]xkforce 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              The majority of the land clearing is illegal.

                              [–]patatepowa05 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              well ultimately its the consumers who doesn't give a fuck how his product is made as long as its cheap

                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                  [–]SinisterKid 241ポイント242ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                  Seems like everyone is banning fats this week.

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                    [–]darthdookie 42ポイント43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 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I thought of that episode too.

                                    [–]austinjb555 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

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

                                    [–]Phantom_Absolute 19ポイント20ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

                                    [–]Meat_Popsicles 7ポイント8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).

                                    [–]louis-wu 23ポイント24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 12ポイント13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.

                                    [–]AvacadosNumber 75ポイント76ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                    Why are school cafeterias exempt?

                                    [–]NuclearMisogynyist 46ポイント47ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Where did you read this?

                                    [–]Falkjaer 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    seconding this, couldn't find it in the article

                                    [–]jimflaigle 65ポイント66ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    Have to get rid of the stock somehow.

                                    [–]AbstractLogic 12ポイント13ポイント  (2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 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

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

                                    [–]terrymr 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

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

                                    [–]DJCzerny 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    Because Turkey Twizzlers are delicious.

                                    [–]Not_Pictured 0ポイント1ポイント  (4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.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                      [–]StationaryNomad 33ポイント34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!

                                      [–]mindfucks 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      About time, considering they continually scar your arteries and are estimated to cause over 10k heart attack deaths a year.

                                      [–]damyankee184 5ポイント6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 4ポイント5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 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

                                      [–]redditizio 8ポイント9ポイント  (4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.

                                      [–]gym00p 3ポイント4ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                      Doesn't that include peanut butter?

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

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

                                      [–]Phantom_Absolute 6ポイント7ポイント  (9子コメント)

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

                                      [–]Valendr0s 4ポイント5ポイント  (8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 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

                                      [–]mleon246 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                      How will this change its taste and consistency?

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

                                      Not natural peanut butter.

                                      [–]pearljamman010 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      King of the Hill predicted this! When will we be seeing illegal food carts?

                                      [–]musicaltoes 2ポイント3ポイント  (7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?

                                      [–]danomano 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

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

                                      [–]Chessmasterrex 5ポイント6ポイント  (4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 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      Natural fats like lard make all those things even better

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

                                      Bacon grease, lard, butter! MMmmm...

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                        [–]jdavrie 2ポイント3ポイント  (1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.

                                        [–]starlightprincess 2ポイント3ポイント  (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 2ポイント3ポイント  (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.

                                        [–]Cat-Hax 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Let's just go back to using lard.

                                        [–]Giles15 7ポイント8ポイント  (5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 9ポイント10ポイント  (3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 4ポイント5ポイント  (2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.

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

                                        The problem is that GRAS is a standard phrasing. You should be able to replace it with a different adjective and maintain meaning.

                                        In this case, you'd lose meaning, because your sentence changes a soft statement (no longer consensus) into a hard statement (not).

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

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

                                          Guys, we need a scientific consensus on whether or not this is generally recognized!

                                          [–]DLFHTLR 1ポイント2ポイント  (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.

                                          [–]AbstractLogic 5ポイント6ポイント  (5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 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                          Yeah, like lead paint prohibition and asbestos prohibition?

                                          [–]nurb101 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Artificial shit being banned is fine by me

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

                                          American Dad called this like 7 years ago.

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

                                          That's so trans-phobic what did those lipids ever do to you?

                                          [–]BobRoberts01 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          While I applaud the banning of artificially inserting trans fats into foods, I am saddened that it will likely lead to an increase in the rampant deforestation related to palm oil production.

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

                                          land of the free sure does like to control everything we do.

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

                                          banning a type of fat cause us retards are eating ourselves to death.

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

                                          This shit (hydrogenated oil) has been banned in many European countries for a long time, while the U.S. sang "it's harmless!"

                                          The U.S. Is basically catching up with what other countries have known for a long time. It's amazing how money interests are allowed to impact and mislead the population's health in that country.

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

                                          Artificial trans fat will be removed from the U.S. food supply over the next three years

                                          From the first line of the article. Ergo, misleading headline.

                                          [–]iprefertau 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                          only cis fats are approved by the FDA \s

                                          [–]Cr3dentialz 4ポイント5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.

                                          [–]Aqua-Tech 6ポイント7ポイント  (10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 13ポイント14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 7ポイント8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 2ポイント3ポイント  (1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.

                                          [–]I4dcQsEpLzTHvD1qhlDE 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          So why not ban ALL trans fats?

                                          Because naturally occurring trans fats aren't a problem. The problem is the ones we create through hydrogenation are unsafe. Detailed explanation: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3a1afv/fda_bans_trans_fats/cs8d42b

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

                                          Naturally occurring trans fats have been shown to be beneficial.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                            [–]Slimerbacca 10ポイント11ポイント  (172子コメント)

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

                                            [–]MothafuckaJones73 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                            I'd rather complain about the misleading title.

                                            [–]Imapopulistnow 13ポイント14ポイント  (3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0ポイント  (5子コメント)

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

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (149 返事)

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

                                              The fats should be whatever gender they want to.

                                              [–]Thorse 1ポイント2ポイント  (11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 4ポイント5ポイント  (10子コメント)

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

                                              [–]palto76 2ポイント3ポイント  (9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.

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

                                              FDA Bans Trans Fats

                                              Not if the TPP has anything to say about it.

                                              [–]Pinworm45 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                              Anything that isn't a strict limitation on sugar is a useless half-measure. But the government will never crack down on the corporations funding them, they simply have too much money and too much lobbying power, so Americans are poised to keep poisoning themselves and having over 50% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) obesity rates

                                              [–]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!

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

                                              The fda is banning tumblr users?

                                              [–]johnny_depps_yorkie 1ポイント2ポイント  (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.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (92 返事)