"Fake" zero transfats

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

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/colhb

Very interesting. Especially all the rationalizations from "experts" about
why the public doesn't need to have the best information available so they
can make their OWN educated decisions as to whether they want to eat
something that contains a small amount of transfat.

It is disturbing, the extent to which the US agencies entrusted with
ensuring the safety of the public's food supplies tend to instead protect
the manufacturers and producers.

Funny how the Canadian food industry can provide transfat content down to
0.2 g/serving, while those in the US are only required to report down to 0.5
g/serving. And "expert" apologists claiming it's just too difficult to
measure that low? Ummmm..... right.

Anyway, one more reason to stick to basic foods and keep away from all the
processed stuff. At least labeling requirements have motivated the
manufacturers to get most of the transfats out of their products.

HG

Good article. It underscores the need to avoid processed foods.

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

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/colhb

Marsha/Ohio

It seems to me more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We
already know labels that show 0g of carb can have up to .5g of carb per
serving because vendors are allowed to round off the amounts. Plus,
it's hard to imagine whether a label showing a serving has .49g or .2g
of transfat per serving instead of 0 is really going to affect many
peoples buying habits. The main point was to avoid the large amounts
of transfat that is in many foods and the labeling does achieve that.

[email hidden] wrote:
:> It seems to me more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We
:> already know labels that show 0g of carb can have up to .5g of carb
:> per serving because vendors are allowed to round off the amounts.
:> Plus, it's hard to imagine whether a label showing a serving has
:> .49g or .2g of transfat per serving instead of 0 is really going to
:> affect many peoples buying habits. The main point was to avoid the
:> large amounts of transfat that is in many foods and the labeling
:> does achieve that.

Some claim that *any* amount of transfat is harmful. If so, then rounding
to zero could be potentially harmful.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

It seems to me more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We
already know labels that show 0g of carb can have up to .5g of carb per
serving because vendors are allowed to round off the amounts. Plus,
it's hard to imagine whether a label showing a serving has .49g or .2g
of transfat per serving instead of 0 is really going to affect many
peoples buying habits. The main point was to avoid the large amounts
of transfat that is in many foods and the labeling does achieve that.

Well, except that, if you trust the latest studies on transfats, the
recommended maximum daily amount is zero grams. Not one gram, not half
a gram, but zero. Apparently even one gram a day can hurt you.

Yes. Like Roger says.

The stuff I read about transfats being used to replace other fats in cell
walls, with a hypothetical malfunction in that cell wall, are scary. I know
there are tiny amounts of transfats in milk, but I'll bet that someday they
start differentiating between natural trans fats and a wider variety of
synthetic trans fats.

Unlike the comment in the article, I do think of it as a poison.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:> It seems to me more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We
:> already know labels that show 0g of carb can have up to .5g of carb
:> per serving because vendors are allowed to round off the amounts.
:> Plus, it's hard to imagine whether a label showing a serving has
:> .49g or .2g of transfat per serving instead of 0 is really going to
:> affect many peoples buying habits. The main point was to avoid the
:> large amounts of transfat that is in many foods and the labeling
:> does achieve that.

Some claim that *any* amount of transfat is harmful. If so, then rounding
to zero could be potentially harmful.

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

Quoted message said:

Good article. It underscores the need to avoid processed foods.

Bingo! My take exactly...and BTW; just what I do...

DustyB
....

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:> It seems to me more like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We
:> already know labels that show 0g of carb can have up to .5g of carb
:> per serving because vendors are allowed to round off the amounts.
:> Plus, it's hard to imagine whether a label showing a serving has
:> .49g or .2g of transfat per serving instead of 0 is really going to
:> affect many peoples buying habits. The main point was to avoid the
:> large amounts of transfat that is in many foods and the labeling
:> does achieve that.

Some claim that *any* amount of transfat is harmful. If so, then rounding
to zero could be potentially harmful.

I wonder if small amounts of transfat could be "neutralized" by equal
amounts of monosaturated fats?

In the meantime however, avoid the transfats and processed food.

"Well, except that, if you trust the latest studies on transfats, the
recommended maximum daily amount is zero grams. Not one gram, not half

a gram, but zero. Apparently even one gram a day can hurt you. "

If you take the position that only zero grams is acceptable, then you
better not eat any more butter or beef either, as both of these have
small amounts of trans fat too. And we'd also have to eliminate most
vegetable oils that are now sold as trans fat free as they have small
amounts of trans fat introduced do to the extraction process.

I think this all needs to be taken in context. Yes, the recommendation
is to keep trans fats as low as possible. However, this doesn;t mean
it's a proven deadly poison where.5g is going to kill you. The best
evidence I've seen is that trans fats can worsen hdl/ldl ratios, raise
ldl, etc. to a certain degree. None of those are desirable, but
that's a lot different than saying only 0 trans fat is a safe or
acceptable level.

I think this is like many things, where some moderation and commons
sense are in order.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "Well, except that, if you trust the latest studies on transfats, the
:: recommended maximum daily amount is zero grams. Not one gram, not
:: half
::
:: a gram, but zero. Apparently even one gram a day can hurt you. "
::
:: If you take the position that only zero grams is acceptable, then you
:: better not eat any more butter or beef either, as both of these have
:: small amounts of trans fat too.

From what I've read, these types of trans fats are *different* than those
that are man-made.

And we'd also have to eliminate most
:: vegetable oils that are now sold as trans fat free as they have small
:: amounts of trans fat introduced do to the extraction process.
::

okay.

:: I think this all needs to be taken in context. Yes, the
:: recommendation is to keep trans fats as low as possible.

The recommendation of some. Others say "0".

However,
:: this doesn;t mean it's a proven deadly poison where.5g is going to
:: kill you.

True, but indications are that any amount will definitely be harmful to you.

The best evidence I've seen is that trans fats can
:: worsen hdl/ldl ratios, raise ldl, etc. to a certain degree. None
:: of those are desirable, but that's a lot different than saying only
:: 0 trans fat is a safe or acceptable level.

I agree. However, arounding down is also not providing the best info for
those who want it. Why can't these numbers be 0.2g?

::
:: I think this is like many things, where some moderation and commons
:: sense are in order.

Yes, but I would claim that listing 0.2g instead of 0 is moderation and
common sense. It gives me the info I want and lets others decide not to
worry if they think that amount won't matter. Moderation comes in in
listing 0.2g instead of 0.19632g 🙂

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "Well, except that, if you trust the latest studies on transfats, the
:: recommended maximum daily amount is zero grams. Not one gram, not
:: half
::
:: a gram, but zero. Apparently even one gram a day can hurt you. "
::
:: If you take the position that only zero grams is acceptable, then you
:: better not eat any more butter or beef either, as both of these have
:: small amounts of trans fat too.

From what I've read, these types of trans fats are *different* than those
that are man-made.

And we'd also have to eliminate most
:: vegetable oils that are now sold as trans fat free as they have small
:: amounts of trans fat introduced do to the extraction process.
::

okay.

:: I think this all needs to be taken in context. Yes, the
:: recommendation is to keep trans fats as low as possible.

The recommendation of some. Others say "0".

However,
:: this doesn;t mean it's a proven deadly poison where.5g is going to
:: kill you.

True, but indications are that any amount will definitely be harmful to you.

The best evidence I've seen is that trans fats can
:: worsen hdl/ldl ratios, raise ldl, etc. to a certain degree. None
:: of those are desirable, but that's a lot different than saying only
:: 0 trans fat is a safe or acceptable level.

I agree. However, arounding down is also not providing the best info for
those who want it. Why can't these numbers be 0.2g?

::
:: I think this is like many things, where some moderation and commons
:: sense are in order.

Yes, but I would claim that listing 0.2g instead of 0 is moderation and
common sense. It gives me the info I want and lets others decide not to
worry if they think that amount won't matter. Moderation comes in in
listing 0.2g instead of 0.19632g 🙂

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

Quoted message said:

I think this all needs to be taken in context. Yes, the recommendation
is to keep trans fats as low as possible. However, this doesn;t mean
it's a proven deadly poison where.5g is going to kill you. The best
evidence I've seen is that trans fats can worsen hdl/ldl ratios, raise
ldl, etc. to a certain degree. None of those are desirable, but
that's a lot different than saying only 0 trans fat is a safe or
acceptable level.

I think this is like many things, where some moderation and commons
sense are in order.

Agreed. Transfats are inadequately studied, and credible experts provide
different recommendations. My point, however, is that I'd like to have the
data and make the decision for myself, not have some agency bureaucrat
decide for me that I don't need to know whether the products I buy contain
transfats at levels between 0.2 and 0.5 g/serving.

HG

"Agreed. Transfats are inadequately studied, and credible experts
provide
different recommendations. My point, however, is that I'd like to have
the
data and make the decision for myself, not have some agency bureaucrat
decide for me that I don't need to know whether the products I buy
contain
transfats at levels between 0.2 and 0.5 g/serving. "

I agree lowering the resolution level to .2g for all nutritional
components, including trans fat and carbs would probably be a good
idea. However, the question that will remain is at what level can a
product be labeled and advertised as being zero carb? There has to be
some limit, as with modern testing capabilities some very small level
of trans fat can likely be found in many foods.

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I think this all needs to be taken in context. Yes, the recommendation
is to keep trans fats as low as possible. However, this doesn;t mean
it's a proven deadly poison where.5g is going to kill you. The best
evidence I've seen is that trans fats can worsen hdl/ldl ratios, raise
ldl, etc. to a certain degree. None of those are desirable, but
that's a lot different than saying only 0 trans fat is a safe or
acceptable level.

I think this is like many things, where some moderation and commons
sense are in order.

Agreed. Transfats are inadequately studied, and credible experts provide
different recommendations. My point, however, is that I'd like to have the
data and make the decision for myself, not have some agency bureaucrat
decide for me that I don't need to know whether the products I buy contain
transfats at levels between 0.2 and 0.5 g/serving.

HG

Well they have to put their carb count on a label because of "bureaucrats"
and they have to list their ingredients because of "bureacrats". Without
regulation of some kind dieting would be impossible.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: "Agreed. Transfats are inadequately studied, and credible experts
:: provide
:: different recommendations. My point, however, is that I'd like to
:: have the
:: data and make the decision for myself, not have some agency
:: bureaucrat decide for me that I don't need to know whether the
:: products I buy contain
:: transfats at levels between 0.2 and 0.5 g/serving. "
::
:: I agree lowering the resolution level to .2g for all nutritional
:: components, including trans fat and carbs would probably be a good
:: idea. However, the question that will remain is at what level can a
:: product be labeled and advertised as being zero carb? There has to
:: be some limit, as with modern testing capabilities some very small
:: level of trans fat can likely be found in many foods.

I think that if serving size and amounts are considered, one could say
something like "trace" levels, especially if measurement accuracy would be
challenged at that amount. The problem is, with food vendors so willing to
round off, a 1-teaspoon serving with .4g of carbs would become zero, and
someone who eats several serving at that size would quite quickly build up a
significant amount of carbs with label info claiming zero carbs. "Trace"
amounts should be such that even if a person consumes several serving, the
total amount of carbs should still be small and such an indication on a
label wouldn't claim zero. I think for a "typical" or "realistic" serving,
label info down to 0.1g ought to be sufficient, unless measurement error
precludes such. I see no real problem with vendors rounding to one digit to
the right of the decimal. Also, instead of saying "trace" on a label, some
symbol could be used, such as "~".

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

:: I agree lowering the resolution level to .2g for all nutritional
:: components, including trans fat and carbs would probably be a good
:: idea. However, the question that will remain is at what level can a
:: product be labeled and advertised as being zero carb? There has to
:: be some limit, as with modern testing capabilities some very small
:: level of trans fat can likely be found in many foods.

I think that if serving size and amounts are considered, one could say
something like "trace" levels, especially if measurement accuracy would be
challenged at that amount. The problem is, with food vendors so willing to
round off, a 1-teaspoon serving with .4g of carbs would become zero, and
someone who eats several serving at that size would quite quickly build up a
significant amount of carbs with label info claiming zero carbs.

This has happened with heavy cream (UK double cream) as far back
as I've been on low carb fora. Some newbies site the zero claim on
cream and consume sizable quantities. It comes as quite a
disappointment when the numbers are run - 6 grams per cup leading
to 0.4 per teaspoon.

Quoted message said:

"Trace"
amounts should be such that even if a person consumes several serving, the
total amount of carbs should still be small and such an indication on a
label wouldn't claim zero. I think for a "typical" or "realistic" serving,
label info down to 0.1g ought to be sufficient, unless measurement error
precludes such. I see no real problem with vendors rounding to one digit to
the right of the decimal. Also, instead of saying "trace" on a label, some
symbol could be used, such as "~".

I've seen labels on Australian products that show to 0.1 gram.

"Joe the Aroma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well they have to put their carb count on a label because of "bureaucrats"
and they have to list their ingredients because of "bureacrats". Without
regulation of some kind dieting would be impossible.

Of course. My argument is with the tendency for agencies like the FDA to
allow manufacturers/producers to provide us with less accurate information
on food content than technology would easily allow, because "we don't need
to know." Especially when their motive includes a desire not to "alarm the
public."

Obviously the manufacturers don't want us to know when their products
contain small amounts of transfats. Some people won't care, but some will
and won't buy their product. I just want the information provided to me, the
consumer, so that *I* can make the decision to buy or not buy, based on good
data, not some guy in DC who is pretty much in the pocket of the
manufacturer.

HG

That should be .4 per tablespoon. There are 16 tablespoons to a cup, 3
teaspoons to a tablespoon so 48 teaspoons/cup.

In news:[email hidden],
Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> stated
|
| This has happened with heavy cream (UK double cream) as far back
| as I've been on low carb fora. Some newbies site the zero claim on
| cream and consume sizable quantities. It comes as quite a
| disappointment when the numbers are run - 6 grams per cup leading
| to 0.4 per teaspoon.
|

FOB said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

| This has happened with heavy cream (UK double cream) as far back
| as I've been on low carb fora. Some newbies site the zero claim on
| cream and consume sizable quantities. It comes as quite a
| disappointment when the numbers are run - 6 grams per cup leading
| to 0.4 per teaspoon.

That should be .4 per tablespoon. There are 16 tablespoons to a cup, 3
teaspoons to a tablespoon so 48 teaspoons/cup.

Thanks for the correction. It shows why I appreciate metric so much.