FDA Bans Trans Fat

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has finally come to a conclusion about artificial trans fat: it must be removed from the U.S. food supply over the next three years. According to their final determination (PDF), there's no longer a scientific consensus that partially hydrogenated oils are safe to consume. Trans fat must be gone from food in the U.S. by June, 2018, unless a petitioner is granted specific approval by the FDA to continue using it. "Many baked goods such as pie crusts and biscuits as well as canned frosting still use partially hydrogenated oils because they help baked goods maintain their flakiness and frostings be spreadable. As for frying, palm oil is expected to be a go-to alternative, while modified soybean oil may catch on as well." The food industry is expected to spend $6.2 billion over the next two decades to formulate replacements, but the money saved from health benefits is expected to be more than 20 times higher.

Comments

I do not consent

[jdavidb]

What if I want to consume it despite there not being a consensus that it is safe to consume?

Re:I do not consent

[Tukz]

Then you should also sign a card saying you are not entitled to medical care to treat potential illnesses caused that have direct links to the digestion of trans fats, unless you pay for it yourself.

I'm all for "it's my body" and all that, I honestly am, but not at the expense of others.

Re:I do not consent

[Adriax]

If you can find it or make it yourself, go ahead and eat it.
This just means you can't get FDA approval for a recipe if you use trans fats in it. And without FDA approval you cannot sell the resulting food in a store.

Re:I do not consent

[sycodon]

So you are against:

Smoking, all forms?
Chewing Tobacco?
Excessive hours posting on Slashdot, playing video Games, etc?
Fast Food?
And and all non-prescribed drugs, including Weed?
Cars that go faster than, say, 65 mph?
Rock climbing or any other dangerous sport?

And we aren't' talking discouraging, we are talking prohibiting by force of federal law.

So you are down with all this and more because, "...but not at the expense of others.."

Re:I do not consent

[mellon]

This is a bit of a silly reduction ad absurdum. The problem with trans fats is that they are cheap and satisfying, and so they wind up in lots and lots of foods people eat, to the point that it's hard to find foods of that type that don't contain them, and you really have to care to find the difference. What this typically looks like is that poor people get foods that are high in trans fats, and well-off people get foods that are not, because poor people shop at price chopper, if they are lucky enough to have one they can get to, and well-off people shop at Whole Foods. And you see this very clearly when you look at health outcomes.

So it's not analogous to tobacco smoke, where the person consuming it has a choice. It's not analogous to chewing tobacco. It is related to fast food, because that's where you find the trans fats, but this actually makes choosing fast food healthier for you.

The point is that whether we make people who make risky health choices pay more or not, this actually eliminates a totally unnecessary health risk that nobody would choose to take on if they had a choice. And that can have a really serious effect on costs down the road, so it's economically a really smart thing to be doing, since health care costs are so high right now. But since it's a choice that can't be made at the point of purchase of the health care, it has to be done some other way, and this is a good way to do it.

Re:I do not consent

[circletimessquare]

tax those things, like cigarettes. i would have been fine with taxing trans fats. but banning them is ok only because there are suitable replacements

the immature understanding of freedom is "i can do whatever i want, damn the consequences"

the mature understanding of freedom is "i can do whatever i want as long as i don't impinge on the freedom of others"

and if your behavior costs me with higher taxes and healthcare premiums for your care, then i have a say in you doing those things, and sending you a bill to help pay for the inevitable higher costs you are causing to me

you really can do whatever you want in life. but if what you do costs others, you are going to be sent a bill

avoiding that bill shows you to be an ignorant freeloader, not a freedom loving person

and this really has nothing to do with big bad evil authoritarian government come to destroy your freedom just for fun and laughs

it's about the natural limitations on your freedoms: the freedoms of others

So you are down with all this and more because, "...but not at the expense of others.."

absolutely. and you're not? you're ok with doing things that cost others without their consent?

that doesn't make you freedom loving. that makes you a thieving freeloader

i'm going to move in next to you and blast loud music at 3 AM. i'm going to jeopardize your life by racing by you in the highway at 95 mph. i'm going to buy a dog and keep hi unchained and let him get in your yard to crap and dig holes. you're telling me that's ok, because your immature "understanding" of freedom apparently means i can do whatever the fuck i want, who gives a fuck if my choices harm or cost others. right?

Re:I do not consent

[bkr1_2k]

So I can sell you sugar laced with arsenic? I can sell you rat labeled as chicken? Get real. You're very happy with the people telling your stores what they can and cannot sell you as long as it's some perceived benefit rather than some perceived slight.

Why in the world you would consider this a limit on your personal freedom I have no idea but we all have our crosses to bear. This may be one of yours, I guess. What exactly do you have a problem with in this decision? The lack of consensus in research or some concern you have over what the replacements will be (and their impacts) or just bitching for the sake of bitching?

Re:I do not consent

[AthanasiusKircher]

Then you should also sign a card saying you are not entitled to medical care to treat potential illnesses caused that have direct links to the digestion of trans fats, unless you pay for it yourself.

Well, okay. Then YOU should sign a card saying you are not entitled to medical care to treat illnesses after you live past the average life expectancy of the general population, unless you pay for it yourself.

I'm all for "it's my body" and all that, I honestly am, but not at the expense of others.

Then pay up if you live long! Seriously.

This is generally the problem with people who make these arguments. There are lots of studies that show that medical costs associated with "unhealthy behaviors" also tend to result in EARLIER DEATH. Meanwhile, there are plenty of studies that show that total medical costs increase significantly with age.

Which means that the greatest cost to society is generally due to the "healthy" people who live to 95 and have to have multiple joint replacements, break hips here and there, have chronic degenerative illnesses that might take 10 or 20 years to kill someone, have a few rounds of minor cancer treatments over the years, and require many years of round-the-clock care after their minds succumb to dementia until they finally die.

Meanwhile, that poor fat guy who ate terribly cost a hell of a lot in diabetes treatment in his 50s, but then he was nice enough to save money for society by having a heart attack and dying at age 62, right after his retirement party.

In sum, when you actually take into account the extra medical expenses caused by LIVING LONGER, it's usually enough to make "healthy" people more expensive over a lifespan compared to people with "unhealthy" behaviors. (This goes for smoking, obesity, etc.)

So, if you're talking about annual premiums for insurance, sure -- I'm with you: make people who eat trans fats pay more if it's actually going to increase short-term medical expenses.

But if you're looking at overall societal costs for people over their lives, be prepared to pony up when you end up living longer and costing more for your "healthy" lifestyle.

(P.S. I don't use trans fats and haven't really used them much ever in my cooking. I don't give a crap if they disappear from processed foods, because I generally avoid them. But this has no bearing on whether your argument is wrong.)

Re:I do not consent

[TWX]

Ayn Rand herself spent her final years on government assistance, taking Medicare and Social Security.

Re:I do not consent

[TWX]

I think it's hilarious when people with slightly different opinions compared to the vast spectrum of positions available argue that the other's position is so incredibly different from their own. None of us want to live in Somalia or in North Korea, where the state effectively doesn't exist or where the state maintains absolute control. We all want the state to do things as an organization, and the very slight differences between what we all want are so small that getting this butt-hurt about them is just stupid.

Re:I do not consent

[tmosley]

She paid for it. There is nothing wrong with taking money back from a bandit (freely given or otherwise).

I will never understand how liberals can harbor so much illogical thought without drowning in the shower.

Re:I do not consent

[tmosley]

Saturated fats have actually been found to be perfectly healthy. This is at the core of the so-called "French Paradox". Everything we thought we knew about macronutrition was straight up fucking WRONG. Fat==good. Carbs==bad. Carbs make you gain weight. Fat makes you lose it. There is a reason Americans have been getting so fat--it is because we have been lied to, and we swallowed those lies, and swallowed and swallowed until we wound up drowning in our own blubber.

Re:I do not consent

[bobbied]

I guess the "pursuit of happiness" and "liberty" is trumped by your right to life.... Or so the liberal progressive mind thinks. How dare you conduct yourself in an unsafe manor, unsafe being how they choose to define it.

Re:I do not consent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ayn Rand's use of social security is proof that she's willing to overlook its ideological flaws for personal gain. Which makes her a hypocrite and a liar, and shows her beliefs to be entirely fictional. Which I suppose can be expected from a fiction writer, but not from the politically mindless drones that deify her.

She's the L. Ron Hubbard of moral and political philosophy. Which is fine if you want to profit from an ideology, but a poor substitute for critical thought and scholarship.

Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syrup?

[ZorinLynx]

One could argue HFCS is worse than transfat and it is used everywhere. Come on, get on a roll, FDA!

FYI

[Travis Mansbridge]

Trans fats are an unwanted biproduct of hydrogenation, and are a fat which humans do not have an enzyme to easily break down. This should directly reduce this incidence of heart disease, and is good news for everyone except cost-cutting food producers.

Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr

[Adriax]

I doubt the Oil Partial Hydrogenators Union has the same pull on capital hill as the Corn Growers Association.

Palm oil eh?

[fustakrakich]

Oh well, the FDA can't do anything about the rainforests.

Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr

[SuricouRaven]

The agricultural lobby is very powerful in the US. Very powerful indeed. They are not easily crossed.

I look forward to the biased reporting.

[SuricouRaven]

I predict that within the week there will be a website somewhere running a variation of 'Obama decrees transfats illegal' with an article claiming science proves they promote weight-loss and prevent cancer, concluding in a warning that regulation of diet is the mark of a communist takeover.

Re:I look forward to the biased reporting.

[Crashmarik]

Let me ask you this. If you can legalize Marijuana why should a big drink or a Croissant be illegal ?

Re:I look forward to the biased reporting.

[DogDude]

If you can legalize Marijuana why should a big drink or a Croissant be illegal ?

Because the weed won't kill you or cost society a fortune in hospitalization fees, whereas the "big drink" and the "croissants" will.

Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr

[grimmjeeper]

One can also argue that any kind of refined sugar is not good for you. HFCS is certainly the worst but cane/beet sugar in any form is not healthy in any way. Even the "raw" forms that are just slightly less refined than table sugar are terrible for you, especially in the quantities we consume them.

And so the cycle of "reform" continues

[PapayaSF]

Ever notice how many reforms are actually reversals of previous reforms? Trans fats got a huge boost in the '70s and '80s because the reformers were convinced that saturated fat was very bad for you. Margarine was supposed to be more healthy than butter. So manufacturers ditched saturated fats and went for trans fats.

Similarly, now people want to ban animal testing, which established at the insistence of the reformers of a century ago. HMOs were a healthcare reform of the '70s, and are now reviled. People now complain about mandatory minimum sentencing, which was a '70s reform meant to end the problem of wildly disparate sentences.

And so the cycle goes....

Re:And so the cycle of "reform" continues

[DogDude]

Yup, people make mistakes. News at 11:00.

If I were interested I'm sure I could document every decision you make today, and criticize your wrong ones in 40 years. Yay.

Soybean Oil = Allergen not good replacement

[haplo21112]

Soybean Oil...well soy in general is an Allergen for a statistically significant portion of the population. NOT a good replacement. World needs to move away from modified anything. Go back to good old natural fats and Oils.

Lard folks....use Lard!

 

Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....

[blue9steel]

Which is why the industry should switch back to tallow and lard, both of which are healthy and better for the environment. The lipid hypothesis has been shown to be totally unsupported by the evidence.

Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....

[jddj]

I think you're right to be concerned about the rainforests due to what is already an increasing demand for palm oil.

However, I put the blame on business looking for monoculture farming, and a generally unsustainable US consumer culture. It's not a secret that Americans have stretched resources to and past the breaking point; that we have demanded everything be constantly available, and cheaper every year. It should be obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skill that that cannot continue indefinitely.

I realize that regulation is now a dirty word, but that is, in fact what is needed. I realize that the international scope of the problem will make that difficult, but the scale of the problem, the size of the disaster looming ought to make it a priority.

I'm sure someone will weigh in, pointing out that shareholder value demands frosting in a can, at the expense of our global carbon sink. Please. Go ahead and make that point.

Re:Excellent. Now how about High Fructose Corn Syr

[DerekLyons]

The agricultural megacorporation lobby is very powerful in the US. Very powerful indeed. They are not easily crossed.

There, fixed that for you... your original looked very odd to those of us old enough remember when the agricultural lobby was the farm lobby.

one down, about a dozen to go.

[nimbius]

trans fats we've known for nearly 10 years are killing us but its not enough. the industry has sat on no brainers for too long and shuffled their lobbyists to the tune of profit. Among others that could be and should be banned:
High Fructose Corn Syrup has turned us into a nation too fat for everything from coffins to military service. numerous studies concur this isnt sugar.
Palm Oil most foods with this ingredient either dont need it, or source it out of a 40 year old legacy habit from colonial dominionism of US trade. the WHO has declared it an abomination, and its destroying rainforest at an alarming rate.
Cigarettes full stop. this shouldnt even be a fucking debate.
Margerine. this is a culinary abortion with as much or more cardiovascular destructiveness as the butter it so readily supplanted in the 70s. ban this sick filth and lets work on diets that contain respectable, conservative amounts of solid fats when needed.

among other things we could cut down on are processed foods in general. its an industry that scams billions out of americans who are manipulated into willfully and ignorantly assuming boiling water and dispensing corn+soy+sodium from a cardboard box is cooking. Jamie oliver was right. Children should be taught at minimum 25 recipes they can use in life for healthy meals and the recipes should then be a required component of graduation.

Re:one down, about a dozen to go.

[Megane]

Cigarettes full stop. this shouldnt even be a fucking debate.

Just remember what happened the last time we outlawed a favorite addiction of Americans.

Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....

[operagost]

Virtual mod points for vegan "religion".

Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....

[bledri]

I think you're right to be concerned about the rainforests due to what is already an increasing demand for palm oil.

However, I put the blame on business looking for monoculture farming, and a generally unsustainable US consumer culture. It's not a secret that Americans have stretched resources to and past the breaking point; that we have demanded everything be constantly available, and cheaper every year. It should be obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skill that that cannot continue indefinitely.

I realize that regulation is now a dirty word, but that is, in fact what is needed. I realize that the international scope of the problem will make that difficult, but the scale of the problem, the size of the disaster looming ought to make it a priority.

I'm sure someone will weigh in, pointing out that shareholder value demands frosting in a can, at the expense of our global carbon sink. Please. Go ahead and make that point.

Flame bait? Seriously? I don't agree that our society is unsustainable, but that's a point for discussion not modding into oblivion. Of course I believe that the way to sustain our society is through recognizing the costs of pollution, deforestation, and the massive release of green house gasses into the atmosphere and using regulation and tax incentives. Blasphemy on this site, I know. And the way to get to sane regulation is to make our government more transparent and to make a constitutional amendment that corporations are not people. People are people and should have rights. Corporations are legal fictions that don't have a natural death and can't be punished.

As for the haters of regulation, we ran that experiment (and sadly are getting ready to run it again.) US rivers were polluted to the point that nothing lived in them. We had "smog days" when we were advised against going outside and exerting ourselves. Rivers caught on fire. I lived through this shit and it saddens me to see people think of it as "the good old days." Of course Libertarians have a solution to that. "Private ownership." So who gets to own the atmosphere? The ocean? Who gets to own the rivers, lakes, aquifers, glaciers (while they last), and rainforests?

Bad regulation sucks. Over regulation sucks. No regulation sucks too. Regulation is like code. Code bloat is bad but the solution is not "no code." The solution isn't "throw it all out and start again" either. The solution is iterative improvement based on real world feedback and improved transparency.

Re:Say Good By to the Rainforests ....

[mopower70]

This is one of my favorite put-up or shut-up discussion points. Since 2004, Certified Sustainable Palm Oil has been available to the market. Over a decade later, a very small percentage of palm oil sold is produced via sustainable, non-destructive methods. Why? Because it costs more. Rather than support the RSPO by buying sustainable palm oil, slacktivists just boycott palm oil altogether rather than rewarding the industry for doing the right thing. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Why would anyone change their behavior if those who want them to change refuse to support it?