Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US FDA Moves To Ban Trans Fat

timothy posted about a year ago | from the for-your-own-good-ad-infinitum dept.

Government 520

UnknowingFool writes "Citing growing health concerns about trans fat, the FDA today proposed measures to eliminate it from the U.S. food supply. While trans fat can still be used, the new measures now place the burden on food processors to justify the inclusion of it in a food product as experts have maintained that there is no safe level of consumption and no health benefits. Since 2006, the amount of trans fat eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g as restaurants and the food industry have reduced their use of it. There will be a 60-day public comment period for the new proposal."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (5, Informative)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45359913)

TFA is more specific than the brief above describes.

Vegans need it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360067)

Vegans have diets that are so low in the LDL (bad) cholesterol that they can be too low. It turns out that you need some LDL cholesterol, or you bleed to death. It is only "bad" when you have too much of it.

Humans can produce their own LDL, but for some people that is not enough and they need dietary LDL. Partially-hydrogenated oils provide that need without requiring a vegan to eat any animal products.

Vegetarians who eat milk, eggs, or fish don't have this problem. But vegans do.

Of course, it is also true that a lot MORE people are dying of heart disease because of too much LDL than are dying of anything because of too little, so I think this battle is up a very steep hill.

Re:Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360141)

If it's that bad for you, tons of health downsides and no upsides, why are people still eating it? Why does the FDA have to go out of it's way to make it illegal to eat something that they're claiming is, essentially, some form of poison?

Is the US federal government saying some significant portion of the american people are too stupid to know to not eat poison?

If that's so... why are those people still allowed to vote?

Re:Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360225)

If trans fats are made illegal, Alcohol and Tobacco better follow fast too

Re:Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360307)

Fuck you.

Re:Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (1)

Meyaht (2729603) | about a year ago | (#45360345)

2nd

Re:Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360479)

People (even the dumb ones) know when they're consuming alcohol and tobacco.

This is often times not true for trans fat.

Re: Artificial trans fat, not just trans fat. (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year ago | (#45360409)

Duh. Seriously?

Is it working? (2)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#45359917)

Since 2006, the amount of trans far eaten by the average American has declined from 4.5g per serving to less than 1g
Are we thinner yet?

Re:Is it working? (5, Informative)

iONiUM (530420) | about a year ago | (#45359941)

That's not the point of removing trans fats. Rather (from the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] ) "In humans, consumption of trans fats increases the risk of coronary heart disease[2][3] by raising levels of the protein LDL (so-called "bad cholesterol") and lowering levels of the protein HDL ("good cholesterol")."

Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease? I suppose smoking is also directly linked, but not banned, so I leave that debate up to everyone who isn't me.

Debate over (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360005)

Smoking = tax money
Trans fats = no tax money

Debate over.

Re:Is it working? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360011)

The difference is that no consumer actually wants trans fat. It just gives cooking oils a longer shelf life. It doesn't actually taste better or anything.
But there are people who want the choice to smoke.

Re:Is it working? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360031)

Next to heart disease, automobile accidents are the biggest killer, will the FDA band the use of cars?

How about they add giant images of people getting mangled in car accidents on the hood.

Or make sure dealerships have opaque white covers so you can't see the cars

Re:Is it working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360347)

You do realize that you are not actually going to be able to taste the difference between products with and without the trans fat? The products could even taste better as they might move to using things like real butter. I can dream can't I? You do realize there is a long history of governments cracking down on unsafe products and saving thousands and thousands of lives? Do governments sometimes go too far? Yes. So what?

Re:Is it working? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45360039)

Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?

In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.

Mandate that any product containing trans fat be labeled as such, and with appropriate health warnings (like they do on tobacco products), but outright bans of things we can only use to harm ourselves is anathema to liberty.

Re:Is it working? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#45360049)

And is there any benefit to using trans fats other than that they are cheaper than alternatives?

Re:Is it working? (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#45360163)

The original theory, as promoted by the same health nuts that are trying to get it banned now, is that because your body can't digest it, it was better than consuming actual fat. It came out of the "fat = bad, carbs = good" mentality from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. That mantra was repeated so much that today it's heresy to even suggest that fat is actually good for you, even though carbs, and the associated insulin response, have been linked with increased risk of heart disease.

Re:Is it working? (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#45360203)

They have a somewhat longer shelf life, but other then that, no, they are simply cheap to manufacture with.

On the more general topic of 'but we are a free country', while the future is difficult to predict, a trans fat ban could very well result in greater consumer choice rather then less. Right now there is an industry race to the bottom, everyone uses trans fats because any company that does not will have marginally higher prices which would hurt the company. As long as ANY company is using them, they all have to in order to be competitive. Consumers do not want the stuff, they just want a slightly lower cost the the box sitting next to whatever it is.

Part of the problem is that right now consumer demand is not the dominant factor in choosing which fat source to use. By removing one option that puts the power back on consumers to demand any particular source they want, or no particular source. For the moment, we have surprisingly little choice. And half the equation in freedom is having choices in the first place.

Re:Is it working? (2)

iONiUM (530420) | about a year ago | (#45360091)

While I agree with liberty first and foremost, transfats are an artificial creation used to save money regardless of health risks. No consumer, if properly educated, would ever choose to eat transfats because they "taste better", or something like this. They don't. There's no advantage, to the consumer to eat them.

So, attempting to bring in liberty to this argument I think is an overreaction, which is why I didn't really want to relate smoking to it (as smoking does "have" a reason why people do it: they enjoy it), and it also isn't in a lot of foods as a "hidden" ingredient that is simply there to replace something else that is not dangerous in order to save the manufacturer money.

Re:Is it working? (1)

sehryan (412731) | about a year ago | (#45360283)

So then I would take it that you are in favor of making marijuana (and other drugs) legal?

Re:Is it working? (5, Informative)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45360117)

The Wiki article and TFA are wrong.

LDL is not the 'cause' of heart disease. It never was. Damage to cells is the cause. Trans fats damage cell which mistake them for saturated fats. Oxidative stress is another mechanism.

LDL raises because it is being generated to transport materials to the sites of damage for repair. Persistent raised LDL is a sign of persistent damage, from things like oxidation, glycation and excess exposure to Miley Cyrus. LDL raising is a response to cellular damage, not a cause. This is why LDL suppressing statins have failed spectacularly to improve human health even while it reduces LDL.

Re:Is it working? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#45360119)

The EPA already tried to ban smoking.

I think the tobacco lobby is too strong.

Re:Is it working? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360247)

No, they are apparently just strong enough. If people want to smoke that's their problem.

Re:Is it working? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45360443)

In the case of smoking people were wise enough to understand what prohibition would get them. I guess since drugs and tobacco often come together, it was easy to make the connections between the 30's prohibition of alcohol (increased crime, dangerous black market) and a proposed tobacco prohibition today. If only people would make that connection to the "war on drugs" we could make social progress...

Re:Is it working? (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#45360133)

One rather specific reason the two are different is industry has any number of drop-in replacements for trans fat, while smoking is a rather unique experience. Artificial trans fats are really more of a manufacturing process then anything else, a way to produce cheap fats for adding to processed foods. They could just as easily add other fat sources and produce something nearly identical in terms of taste and texture but at a marginally higher cost.

No. We shouldn't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360135)

Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease?

No, we shouldn't. The purpose of government is not to protect people form themselves.

Re:No. We shouldn't. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45360363)

I support accurate labeling, however, and do not support scurrilous behavior where people knowingly sell products without at least letting you know.

"Warning! This product contains trans fats created from a process to make vegetable oil turn rancid more slowly, but, on a per-calorie basis, is approximately 2.5x as bad for you as animal fat, which is the stuff you are supposedly using vegetable oil trying to avoid soas to not have heart attacks."

Re:Is it working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360321)

Should we not ban something that is directly linked to an increased risk in heart disease? I suppose smoking is also directly linked, but not banned, so I leave that debate up to everyone who isn't me.

There's WAY too much tax revenue from tobacco products to outright ban them.

Re:Is it working? (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45360451)

Unlike trans fat, makers of processed food and restaurants never sneak cigarettes into the food.

Re:Is it working? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360041)

Trans fat is about heart disease.

If you want to attack obesity aim for sugar. If you want to loose weight just take whatever sugar intake you are doing and cut it to 1/3rd.

This does affect some of the snack foods we eat today. Including movie theater popcorn, and microwave popcorn. Because of the high shelf life. Many have already moved away from trans fat with the last size reduction.

The real affect will be food with a shorter shelf life and per dollar higher cost.

Re:Is it working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360055)

No. [gallup.com]

STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359921)

Keep your god damn grubby socialist big-brother mitts out of my arter

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year ago | (#45360115)

We're all socialists whenever it benefits us. Do you favor zoning laws that set minimum parking requirements instead of allowing store owners to decide how many parking spaces to provide for their own customers? If so, then you are a socialist, even if you are able to rationalize such laws.

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360215)

So? Some laws makes sense. That doesn't mean ALL laws are good and we should open the flood gates.

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360259)

Jesus Christ. The guy you were replying to was being sarcastic (like a 5 year old child). He's a Big Government stooge, just the way you like your stooges. So you two are in violent agreement.

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360301)

Ohhhh boy, and here comes ReichStagFred88 to goose-step all over internet jokes.

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360471)

I goose stepped all over your mother's slimy, acrid pussy, you sniveling little cunt.

Re:STUPID DUMBOCRAPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360269)

Not mention Police Departments, Fire Departments, Highways, etc.

Further down that slippery slope... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359939)

It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it. How long before meat is banned? Sugar? Fat? Salt?

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359951)

Next thing you know the only restaurant available is Taco Bell and Aunt Bea is copping a squat in back struggling with the three seashells.

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#45360145)

+1 Funny (demolition man reference)

Now slipperier thanks to reduced fatty deposits! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360053)

It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it.

Presumably, you can still produce your own trans fats for your own personal consumption.

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#45360077)

It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it. How long before meat is banned? Sugar? Fat? Salt?

Yeah I think it is unfair that ChiChis was run out of business. If people want to eat hepatitis A tainted food, they should be allowed!

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360299)

Totally the same thing, Jeeves. What next from your ilk, a Cyanide reference?

Yeah, like turr hurr, if people want cyanide laced Tylenol they should be able turr hurr!

Shut the fuck up. Trans fats are nowhere near as dangerous as people claim, they can be safely consumed in moderation and actually make many baked goods taste better.

You can safely consume trans-fats, you can't safely consume Hep A. The FDA's job is not to be our health watchdog. If it were, they'd ban all sorts of things people get obese or sick from when eaten to excess.

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#45360081)

It's not enough that we tell people what they eat may be bad for them, now we enforce it. How long before meat is banned? Sugar? Fat? Salt?

I tend to agree with this in principal yet as it stands consumers are denied the ability to know how much trans fat is in the shit their eating due to the infamous 0.5g/serving threshold loophole.

Either change labeling laws or get rid of the shit. Changing labeling laws would essentially have the same effect anyway I suspect.

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360323)

.5/g per serving of Trans-fats will not hurt you. Silly point.

Re:Further down that slippery slope... (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#45360257)

This is pretty specific. We are talking about a low cost additive with known health risks and no shortage of drop in replacements. This is really more of a food safety issue then anything else, similar to requirements around cleanliness in food manufacturing plants or not allowing lead pipes for potable water.

Please please! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359943)

Can they mandate the buying of broccoli too? Oh Oh, can they tell me what time I should should go to bed? I don't want to live my life, lets just turn the U.S. into one giant game of the sims!

Re:Please please! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360063)

Bring on the downvotes! You obviously know how to live my life better than I do. fucking liberals

Where in the Constitution... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359945)

...does it give the federal government the power to ban food or food ingredients?

Especially if the food in question does not cross state boundaries, and thus should not be subject to the interstate commerce clause?

Re:Where in the Constitution... (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45360047)

Please eat trans fats until you die, or go and whinge about them doing something actually bad. There's plenty of bad things to complain about. This is not one of them.

Re:Where in the Constitution... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360339)

Yes. And when Arkansas or some other back-woods shithole bans gay sex, we can tell the gays the same thing. And when they ban soda you can tell all those soda drinkers to quit whining.

Re:Where in the Constitution... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45360311)

Outside of farmers' markets, most foods do cross state boundaries (and much of it, national boundaries). Something as simple as a fruit basket probably contains food from Florida (oranges), Hawaii (bananas, pineapples), New York (apples), California (grapes) and Oregon (pears). Because different things are so reliant on different climates, food is probably one of the most likely products to cross state lines.
More relevant to fast food and other companies most likely to use trans fats, they usually have a small list of suppliers that franchisees can buy from, which will likely be shipping from just a few major warehouses that each cover several states.

tl;dr: It's pretty unlikely that the average person will go an entire day without eating something that wasn't the result of interstate commerce.

Re:Where in the Constitution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360387)

Haven't you heard, everything is now interstate commerce. Your health could affect your ability to go to work to produce things that are sent to other states, or even if the product stays entirely within the state, but could affect someone else who affects interstate commerce. The interstate commerce clause is no longer a slippery slope, it is a bottomless pit.

What about natural trans fat? (3, Informative)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45359949)

Trans fats appear naturally in small amounts in things like cream.

Cream, being mostly saturated, zero carb and choc full of fat soluble vitamins is a very healthy food.

There is plenty of reasonable hypothesis that the small amount of trans fats in milkfat has a hormetic effect. It is the bulk trans fats in engineered foods that is toxic.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | about a year ago | (#45359999)

You could at least read the first line of the FA.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45360003)

"The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed measures that would all but eliminate artificial trans fats, the artery clogging substance that is a major contributor to heart disease in the United States, from the food supply."

Keyword: artificial. But because that wasn't enough, the article goes on to say:

"Some trans fats occur naturally. The F.D.A. proposal only applies to those that are added to foods."

Re:What about natural trans fat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360109)

"The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed measures that would all but eliminate artificial trans fats, the artery clogging substance that is a major contributor to heart disease in the United States, from the food supply."

Keyword: artificial. But because that wasn't enough, the article goes on to say:

"Some trans fats occur naturally. The F.D.A. proposal only applies to those that are added to foods."

Given the controversy surrounding GMO labeling of foods, I'm rather shocked to find a hint of common sense leaking from the FDA.

It would appear someone there either has a brain, or has not been bought off yet.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360367)

What controversy? There is none. There is no scientifically sound reason to ban or specially label GMO foods - period. Pretending there's a controversy is a popular tack of the anti-science lot, I guess.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year ago | (#45360017)

Not an issue. According to TFA, "[The] proposed measures that would all but eliminate artificial trans fats."

Emphasis added.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360037)

Let me guess, you weigh about 300 pounds right?

Re:What about natural trans fat? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45360183)

No. 200. Used to be 245 until I went of a high fat diet.

Re:What about natural trans fat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360415)

Ketosis for the win.

HFC would be a better start (5, Insightful)

sputnikid (191152) | about a year ago | (#45359971)

Why not targeting high fructose corn syrup instead?

It is far more harmful and sugar is a better (albeit pricier) replacement.

Re:HFC would be a better start (0)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45360023)

>It is far more harmful and sugar

Citation required.
Once sucrose is cleaved in to fructose and glucose a few ms after hitting the stomach, there is no chemical difference between HFCS and Sucrose.

An natural, whole foods, organic fructose molecule cleaved from sucrose behaves bizarrely similarly to any other fructose molecule.

The additional harm, if any, is in the evidence HFCS gives that the food producer is willing to go to any lengths to cut costs. So it reflects on the whole process.

Re:HFC would be a better start (4, Insightful)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year ago | (#45360061)

Why not targeting high fructose corn syrup instead?

It is far more harmful and sugar is a better (albeit pricier) replacement.

The reason is right in the name. Corn is a major part of the US agriculture industry. Do you know how much lobbying power they have?

Re:HFC would be a better start (1, Flamebait)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360381)

Bullshit. The reason is that HFCS scaremongering is not based on anything approaching scientific reality.

Re:HFC would be a better start (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#45360089)

Why not targeting high fructose corn syrup instead?

It is far more harmful and sugar is a better (albeit pricier) replacement.

Lobbyists, probably.

Re:HFC would be a better start (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#45360097)

Judging by the majority of "durr, what business does the gubment have..." responses to this FA, I'm surprised they're not demanding cyclamate [wikipedia.org] back.

Re:HFC would be a better start (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360435)

Looks like we should be, the original study was silly and more recent studies have shown no dangers. But your fail is the same as all the other "durr, should we allow cyanide turr hurr" fails.

Trans fats can be safely consumed in moderation. Period. The FDA has no reason to be banning it.

Re:HFC would be a better start (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45360111)

Every anti-HFCS study I've ever seen just concludes that too much of it is bad, but it's generally no worse than too much sugar. The only difference is HFCS is used more, so it's more likely to be the cause of obesity or other sugar-related maladies.

Bad car analogy: Toyotas cause more crashes than Bugattis. It doesn't necessarily mean that Bugattis are safer, it just means there's more Toyotas to cause crashes. (It actually means zilch in the argument over which is safer).

Re:HFC would be a better start (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#45360137)

If this seems to work after a few years, they may try. The corn farmers are protected by Agricultural Lobbies, I am guessing that they want to get people used to targeted ingredients removal before messing with the big kids.

Corn syrup is in a lot of foods, I can see the news stories now of whoever proposes the law is trying to take away all your favorite foods. You are not allowed to eat what you want, etc. I think eventually it will happen, but you will see more resistance than to the trans-fat.

Re:HFC would be a better start (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#45360293)

Sadly, because the corn lobby is probably on par with defense contractors in terms of lobbying power.

Re:HFC would be a better start (2)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#45360393)

Sugar used to be cheap. It hasn't been for quite some time. Why?

Because we insist on holding a grudge against the Cuban people.

Trans Fat Pudding (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#45359987)

You mean I'll not be able to buy any more beef tallow pudding? I eat that stuff by the spoonful!

Re:Trans Fat Pudding (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45360033)

As long as you're using real beef tallow, you should be fine. The article specifies the trans fats have to be artificial.

Re:Trans Fat Pudding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360201)

Actually, I think beef tallow has zero trans fat, unless it has been chemically processed. So on both counts you should be fine.

Pointless ... (1)

RogueLeaderX (845092) | about a year ago | (#45359989)

So either make a requirement that all food additives follow guidelines to provide "safe levels of consumption and health benefits" or let consumers and corporations work it out on their own. Targeting individual food products is as productive as targeting individual financial products or individual companies in regulation. It just creates more work ... oh; nevermind, figured that out.

Land of the Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45359995)

If people want to eat trans fats that should be their choice.

Re:Land of the Free (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#45360193)

If you really feel the urge to eat partially hydrogenated vegatable oil, you can always grab a spoon and a tub of margarine and gob away to your heart's content.

Re:Land of the Free (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45360421)

doesn't we have other more dangerous things to worry about, like absurd levels of white sugar and HFCS in the diet?

Why not just tax it instead? (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45360015)

There's no significant health benefits to smoking tobacco either, but that's still perfectly legal

Re:Why not just tax it instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360205)

There's no significant health benefits to smoking tobacco either, but that's still perfectly legal

Unless you want the special Bureau set up to handle that toxic shit to be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Trans-Fats, and your taxes raised (dis)appropriately to reflect this new additional overhead required for policing all the trans-fat use in the world, kindly STFU with this bullshit idea.

Give lobbyists an opportunity to continue to create revenue and manipulate policy at the cost of human life and taxpayer money, and they fucking will.

Re:Why not just tax it instead? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45360385)

Honest question... how would it require any more overhead to put a tax on it than to ban it, which is what they are proposing?

I'm only suggesting that if they are wanting to do the latter, they should just do the former. Or would you just rather take people's choice away completely?

Wrong demon... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360019)

Ban HFCS instead.

Re:Wrong demon... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45360455)

You mean battle one imaginary demon instead of another?

A new, worse fat will be invented. (1)

generic_screenname (2927777) | about a year ago | (#45360021)

Trans fats are stable and solid at room temperature. This is desirable in a food product. Trans fats are horrid, but they may or may not be more horrid than whatever comes along to replace them. The real solution is for the US government to stop subsidizing processed food by making corn and soy artificially cheap. As long as McDonald's is cheaper than quality vegetables, people will continue to eat garbage.

Re:A new, worse fat will be invented. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45360169)

Point the finger at McDonalds makes for a pretty poor argument when the article specifically mentions it as one of the many companies that have already eliminated trans fats. So in this case, they're actually ahead of the curve by several years.

Re:A new, worse fat will be invented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360277)

Trans fats are stable and solid at room temperature. This is desirable in a food product.

Uh, no, those are traits that are desirable to a transportation and storage vendor.

What is desirable in a food product is that it is fucking edible and won't kill you. Unfortunately, the desire of food manufacturers is to maximize profits, so those basic common sense requirements go as far as the FDA can be manipulated, which is why we have shitty legal food today.

Trans fats are horrid, but they may or may not be more horrid than whatever comes along to replace them. The real solution is for the US government to stop subsidizing processed food by making corn and soy artificially cheap. As long as McDonald's is cheaper than quality vegetables, people will continue to eat garbage.

If the McShitheads want to continue to poison their bodies because they are too stupid to learn how to eat healthy food, then so be it. Just don't make me the taxpayer pay for their goddamn medical burden on society.

And I'm not going to stop looking for a cure for AIDS, cancer, or the common cold just because I'm worried about what might come next. How the hell you even leave the house with that level of paranoia is beyond me.

Replacement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360027)

Begs the question: what are they replacing it with?

Re:Replacement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360083)

Please look up "begs the question."

Re:Replacement? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45360449)

ordinary garden variety saturated and unsaturated fats. vegetable oil, lard, etc.

copy C: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360035)

I've Recently discovered the new cloud service copy and it has replaced
Dropbox completely.. You get 15 Gb of free space and with each
Referral you get 5 gigs extra space. The surface is very similar to Dropbox, in my opinion
even better. There is also a desktop app for Windows and Mac, as well as a mobile
App for Ios and Android.

sign up here for free: https://copy.com?r=KWvFyA

substitutes may be just as bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360167)

The ban will be against artificial hydrogenated oils.

Food processors will change over to oils like coconut, palm kernel oil, and animal based oils because they can be solid at room temperature,

My wife has a severe allergy to palm based oils making it difficult to shop in the grocery store. Every couple of months we find something else she can not eat because ingredients on the label have changed

Re:substitutes may be just as bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360285)

Well then, we should absolutely change federal health regulations to accommodate your precious snowflake.

Re:substitutes may be just as bad (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#45360461)

those substitutes are much better though for most people, you'll just have to be careful and be thankful things have to be properly labeled by law

This is fuckin stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360261)

This is fuckin stupid. Fuck freedom. Thank you government for thinking for me, right, wrong or indifferent.

Ban carbohydrates, they are the real problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45360365)

Especially the low GI ones such as sugar and maple syrup. That shit is worst than crack cocaine for your health.

Everyone blames fats for all health problems but it makes no sense.

A human being cannot live without proteins, cannot live with fats but can live absolutely fine without carbohydrates. Some human populations such as the Inuits have been doing it since forever.

It's been 4 years since I have lived in a constant state of ketosis except for the eventual family/close-friends party/dinner where I have to eat a cake or a pie or else everyone says I'm a party booper.

My health indices are perfect, literally perfect. People ask me if I'm a model because of my shape and low body fat.

But no, people say I'm wrong cause I adopted a low carb way of life.

Yes, this is a rant. Point being: Fuck carbs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?