Searching \ for '[OT] Trans fats deemed to be severe health risk -' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=trans+fats+deemed
Search entire site for: 'Trans fats deemed to be severe health risk -'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Trans fats deemed to be severe health risk - '
2005\02\14@015916 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Food makers are having trouble finding an acceptable substitute for
what was once seen as the miracle substitute for saturated fats but is
now seen as a major health hazard. .

       http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/business/13transfat.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=


       RM
____________

An artificial fat once embraced as a cheap and seemingly healthy
alternative to saturated fats like butter or tropical oils, partially
hydrogenated oil has been the food industry's favorite cooking medium
for decades. It makes French fries crisp and sweets creamy, and keeps
packaged pastries fresh for months.

But scientists contend that trans fat, a component of the oil, is more
dangerous than the fat it replaced. Studies show trans fat has the
same heart-clogging properties as saturated fat, but unlike saturated
fat, it reduces the good cholesterol that can clear arteries. A small
but growing body of research has connected it to metabolic problems.

The Food and Drug Administration has declared that there is no healthy
level in the diet and has ordered food companies to disclose trans fat
amounts on food labels by January 2006.

2005\02\14@054847 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu]
>Sent: 14 February 2005 06:59
>To: PIC List
>Subject: [OT] Trans fats deemed to be severe health risk -
>food industry finding replacement hard
>
>
>Food makers are having trouble finding an acceptable substitute for
>what was once seen as the miracle substitute for saturated fats but is
>now seen as a major health hazard. .
>
>        
>www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/business/13transfat.html?th=&
pagewanted=print&position=

>The Food and Drug Administration has declared that there is no healthy
>level in the diet and has ordered food companies to disclose trans fat
>amounts on food labels by January 2006.


Whilst I agree that these fats are probably not healthy, I think we
should remind ourselves that this is the same Food and Drug
Administration that has declared Aspartame as safe for human
consumption, even though exhaustive testing has shown it breaks down
into serious neurotoxins, and in fact caused tumours and siezures in the
animals it was originaly tested on.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\02\14@065202 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Whilst I agree that these fats are probably not healthy, I think we
> should remind ourselves that this is the same Food and Drug
> Administration that has declared Aspartame as safe for human
> consumption, even though exhaustive testing has shown it breaks down
> into serious neurotoxins, and in fact caused tumours and siezures in
> the
> animals it was originaly tested on.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't :-)

I've read or skimmed numerous Aspartame papers and I'm in a "don't
know" position on it. I think there is scant really good information
available on the worst of its claimed affects on humans. Bear in mind
that to SOME people (phenyl ketoneurics) it is undoubtedly the
deadliest of poisons for genetic reasons. I'm less than confident
about its general safety, and I HATE the taste, but I'm uncertain that
it's really as bad as many claim. I'd be entirely happy for anyone to
point me at better information that demonstrates it's bad effects.
Bad information that "demonstrates" this I already have :-).

It's interesting to note that people attempting to induce ketosis
(high protein, high fat, about zero carbohydrate "Atkins" type diet)
generally have more difficulty achieving ketosis when taking
aspartame. I find it almost impossible to achieve ketosis with more
than a trace of carbohydrate intake and it SEEMS aspartame makes it
worse, but I don't have a controlled enough record to make this
certain.)

Trans fats have been on the naughty-naughty list for a long time now.
The FDA is finally catching up with this. That the manufacturers are
spending so much time on trying to find replacements suggests that
someone has convinced them that the cause is lost, for whatever
reason.



       RM


2005\02\14@095915 by Mike Hord

picon face
> > Whilst I agree that these fats are probably not healthy, I think we
> > should remind ourselves that this is the same Food and Drug
> > Administration that has declared Aspartame as safe for human
> > consumption, even though exhaustive testing has shown it breaks down
> > into serious neurotoxins, and in fact caused tumours and siezures in
> > the animals it was originaly tested on.

I actually tend to think that if the FDA says something is bad, it must
be REALLY bad, especially when it is a substance as ubiquitous and
difficult to replace as trans-fat.

After all, if the junk-food lobbyists couldn't supress it, it must be REALLY
REALLY bad.

Mike H.

2005\02\14@114610 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:59:13 -0600, Mike Hord <mike.hordspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> I actually tend to think that if the FDA says something is bad, it must
> be REALLY bad, especially when it is a substance as ubiquitous and
> difficult to replace as trans-fat.
>

I didn't read the article, but I don't see why trans fats are so hard
to replace.  In Canada, there has been talk of a ban on trans fats.
Because of this, many food companies began labeling the amounts of
trans fats, and using alternatives.  They've been using '0 Trans Fats'
as a selling point.

I've recently been able to eat Honey Nut Cheerios again so I'm pretty
happy about that.

Alex

2005\02\14@121311 by Mark E. Skeels

picon face
I noticed that several years ago, the phrase "hydrogenated vegetable oil"
dissappeared form all the salad dressing labels in the grocery store.

But my question is, did the hydrogenated vegetable oil also dissapear from
the salad dressing at the same time?

Mark


2005\02\14@123606 by michael brown

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hord" <.....mike.hordKILLspamspam.....gmail.com>


> I actually tend to think that if the FDA says something is bad, it
must
> be REALLY bad, especially when it is a substance as ubiquitous and
> difficult to replace as trans-fat.
>
> After all, if the junk-food lobbyists couldn't supress it, it must be
REALLY
> REALLY bad.

Ding ding ding, give the man a cigar.  The FDA wouldn't even ban
thymerisol (a mercury containing preservative used in vaccines) no
matter how many horror stories surfaced.  They *asked* the drug
companies to stop using it.  Of course to this very day, nearly every
pediatrician in the country will tell you that thymerisol is *harmless*.
How about that, mercury is harmless to newborns and infants.  Anybody
else buy that?

2005\02\14@133122 by Peter Johansson

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones writes:

> Whilst I agree that these fats are probably not healthy, I think we
> should remind ourselves that this is the same Food and Drug
> Administration that has declared Aspartame as safe for human
> consumption, even though exhaustive testing has shown it breaks down
> into serious neurotoxins, and in fact caused tumours and siezures in the
> animals it was originaly tested on.

And while you're at it, don't forget the fact that many top FDA
officials were previously executives at some of the largest food and
drug companies, and that the food and drug lobbies are two of the most
funded lobbies in the US.

-p.

2005\02\14@144133 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Yep, well connected politicians that we can trust to regulate former friends
and co-workers in the multi-billion dollar ag industry.

http://www.massmind.org/other/food

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\02\14@184612 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I didn't read the article, but I don't see why trans fats are so
> hard
> to replace.

Read the article. They explain in detail what transfat containing
products do for a "food engineering" point of view, and what they have
been having trouble doing without them.


       RM

2005\02\15@100806 by Lawrence Lile

picon face

>I've recently been able to eat Honey Nut Cheerios again so I'm pretty
>happy about that.
>
>Alex


My sarcastic advice:  Save your money and your heart and buy a box of oatmeal.  If it isn't sweet enough add some real actual honey made by a real bee, and harvested by one of your neighbors who runs a bee farm. If more people did this, we would all be better off economically and health-wise.

P.S. I still like the cheerios too.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

2005\02\17@042730 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

could you please point me at least one publication (I mean case
study) which proves the mentioned dangerous side effects of aspartame?
Unfortunately, I could not remember any of them... Statements like "it has
been suggested ... may cause ..." should not be treated as proven facts
IMHO.

Regards,
Imre


On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

>
>
>> {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...