Feds target trans fats

On 24 Nov 2004 07:27:46 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html

OTTAWA -- Canada is on the way to becoming the second country in the
world to limit trans fats. The House of Commons passed an NDP motion
last night calling for regulations or legislation within one year that
would virtually ban the artery-clogging substance from food sold in
Canada.

Trans fat, found in hydrogenated vegetable oil, became widely used
after concern was raised in the 1970s about the link between saturated
fats and heart disease.

Trans fats are in most baked and fried food, many "low-fat" products
and in foods children eat, such as fish sticks and frozen waffles. On
Jan. 1, Denmark became the first country to impose a limit on them.

********

The NDP is the New Democratic Party, a left of center party, dreaded
socialists.

Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider
protecting American consumers like this.

Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine.
Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently
claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular
degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at
here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow to
blame.

Dunne E. Dawe said:

On 24 Nov 2004 07:27:46 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html

Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider
protecting American consumers like this.

Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine.
Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently
claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular
degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at
here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow to
blame.

Many American margarines have low levels of trans fats. They claim to have
none, or zero grams per serving, or both. The reality is that they contain
some, but the government allows them to round down to the nearest gram.
Since serving size is arbitrary, it's not too hard to come up with a portion
that has .499999 grams and say it's trans-fat-free. Realistically, that's
still better than something that has high levels of trans fats, and I don't
object to them saying 0g/serving if the government made that the rule (not
that I agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say
that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:35:59 -0800, "Hagrinas Mivali"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe said:

On 24 Nov 2004 07:27:46 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau) posted:

Quoted message said:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html

Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider
protecting American consumers like this.

Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine.
Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently
claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular
degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at
here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow to
blame.

Many American margarines have low levels of trans fats. They claim to have
none, or zero grams per serving, or both. The reality is that they contain
some, but the government allows them to round down to the nearest gram.
Since serving size is arbitrary, it's not too hard to come up with a portion
that has .499999 grams and say it's trans-fat-free. Realistically, that's
still better than something that has high levels of trans fats, and I don't
object to them saying 0g/serving if the government made that the rule (not
that I agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say
that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts.

I agree in principle, but how much trans fat does butter contain? Does
it have to say how much in your country? And what problems does a
trace amount cause? Are we getting our knickers in a twist about
nothing?

Dunne E. Dawe said:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:35:59 -0800, "Hagrinas Mivali"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe said:

On 24 Nov 2004 07:27:46 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau)
posted:

> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html
>
>
> Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider
> protecting American consumers like this.

Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine.
Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently
claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular
degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at
here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow
to blame.

Many American margarines have low levels of trans fats. They claim
to have none, or zero grams per serving, or both. The reality is
that they contain some, but the government allows them to round down
to the nearest gram. Since serving size is arbitrary, it's not too
hard to come up with a portion that has .499999 grams and say it's
trans-fat-free. Realistically, that's still better than something
that has high levels of trans fats, and I don't object to them
saying 0g/serving if the government made that the rule (not that I
agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say
that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts.

I agree in principle, but how much trans fat does butter contain? Does
it have to say how much in your country? And what problems does a
trace amount cause? Are we getting our knickers in a twist about
nothing?

Butter is not the problem. The problem is that the rule says that
manufacturers can round down to zero when there's less than a half gram PER
SERVING. But it's up to a manufacturer to decide what constitutes a serving
size. Something could contain 1.5 grams of trans fat if a person routinely
uses three tablespoons, but if the manufacturer puts a serving size at
slightly under one tablespoon, it might say that it has no trans fat. If the
margarine is just one of many ingredients in a meal that "contain no trans
fat," it could add up quickly. It would not be hard to put together a meal
with 6g or more, even if the consumer thinks there is none. Is 18g per day
the same as zero?

If one product contains .5 grams of trans fat, and the serving size is
realistic, and another brand contains 0 grams, it will cause confusion. If
I see that a serving size is not realistic, my instinct would be to
multiply. But 3x0=0, not 1.49.

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high
levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for
themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into
account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams
total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems
wrong.

Hagrinas Mivali said:

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high
levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for
themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into
account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams
total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems
wrong.

This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many
processed foods.

Preston

Preston Crawford said:

Hagrinas Mivali said:

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that
has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be
able to decide for themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't
mind if it took into account the total weight of a portion. If a
tablespoon weighs 5 grams total, and it's almost 10% trans fat,
telling me that there's none seems wrong.

This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many
processed foods.

Preston

If you disagree with me, are you saying that high levels of trans fats are
better, or are you saying that it's fine not to disclose trans fats?

"Hagrinas Mivali" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Preston Crawford said:

Hagrinas Mivali said:

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that
has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be
able to decide for themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't
mind if it took into account the total weight of a portion. If a
tablespoon weighs 5 grams total, and it's almost 10% trans fat,
telling me that there's none seems wrong.

This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many
processed foods.

Preston

If you disagree with me, are you saying that high levels of trans fats
are
better, or are you saying that it's fine not to disclose trans fats?

I read this to say he is in total agreement with you.

-DF

Doug Freese said:

"Hagrinas Mivali" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Preston Crawford said:

On 2004-12-09, Hagrinas Mivali <[email hidden]> wrote:
> As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that
> has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be
> able to decide for themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't
> mind if it took into account the total weight of a portion. If a
> tablespoon weighs 5 grams total, and it's almost 10% trans fat,
> telling me that there's none seems wrong.

This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many
processed foods.

Preston

If you disagree with me, are you saying that high levels of trans fats
are
better, or are you saying that it's fine not to disclose trans fats?

I read this to say he is in total agreement with you.

Yes. Exactly.

Preston

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:00:55 -0800, "Hagrinas Mivali"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe said:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:35:59 -0800, "Hagrinas Mivali"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Dunne E. Dawe wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2004 07:27:46 -0800, [email hidden] (tcomeau)
> posted:
>
>> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html
>>
>>
>> Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider
>> protecting American consumers like this.
>
> Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine.
> Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently
> claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular
> degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at
> here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow
> to blame.

Many American margarines have low levels of trans fats. They claim
to have none, or zero grams per serving, or both. The reality is
that they contain some, but the government allows them to round down
to the nearest gram. Since serving size is arbitrary, it's not too
hard to come up with a portion that has .499999 grams and say it's
trans-fat-free. Realistically, that's still better than something
that has high levels of trans fats, and I don't object to them
saying 0g/serving if the government made that the rule (not that I
agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say
that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts.

I agree in principle, but how much trans fat does butter contain? Does
it have to say how much in your country? And what problems does a
trace amount cause? Are we getting our knickers in a twist about
nothing?

Butter is not the problem. The problem is that the rule says that
manufacturers can round down to zero when there's less than a half gram PER
SERVING. But it's up to a manufacturer to decide what constitutes a serving
size. Something could contain 1.5 grams of trans fat if a person routinely
uses three tablespoons, but if the manufacturer puts a serving size at
slightly under one tablespoon, it might say that it has no trans fat. If the
margarine is just one of many ingredients in a meal that "contain no trans
fat," it could add up quickly. It would not be hard to put together a meal
with 6g or more, even if the consumer thinks there is none. Is 18g per day
the same as zero?

If one product contains .5 grams of trans fat, and the serving size is
realistic, and another brand contains 0 grams, it will cause confusion. If
I see that a serving size is not realistic, my instinct would be to
multiply. But 3x0=0, not 1.49.

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high
levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for
themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into
account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams
total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems
wrong.

I agree. I understand that in Australia, the limit for saying zero, is
0.5%, but I might be out on this. The fact remains though that
Australian marges have very little trans fats, and so the retinal
problems found in USA were not found here.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:50:53 -0600, Preston Crawford
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Hagrinas Mivali said:

As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high
levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for
themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into
account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams
total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems
wrong.

This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many
processed foods.

Perhaps "manufactured" rather than "processed"?
Processed seems to mean more "refined" to me, "things removed", rather
than "new foodstuffs made from many ingredients in a factory"? But I'm
not sure how it would be regarded in America.
What do folks think "processed" means to them?