Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 17 2015, @01:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the a-fat-lot-of-good-that-will-do dept.

FDA to ban trans-fats within 3 years

The FDA is finally rectifying one of their biggest failures ever -- trans fats. The FDA on Tuesday ruled that trans fat is not "generally recognized as safe" for use in human food.

"In many ways, trans fat is a real tragic story for the American diet," Nissen said. "In the 1950s and '60s, we mistakenly told Americans that butter and eggs were bad for them and pushed people to margarine, which is basically trans fat. What we've learned now is that saturated fat is relatively neutral -- it is the trans fat that is really harmful and we had made the dietary situation worse."

USA to ban partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil

According to multiple sources, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is set to ban partially-hydrogenated oil, a major source of trans-fats, which have been shown to cause heart disease. The ban will go into effect in 3 years.

New York Times:

The agency has proposed that partially hydrogenated oils, the source of trans fats, no longer be "generally recognized as safe."

That means companies would have to prove that such oils are safe to eat, a high hurdle given that scientific literature overwhelmingly shows the contrary. The Institute of Medicine has concluded that there is no safe level for consumption of them, a conclusion that the F.D.A. cited in its reasoning.

Partially hydrogenated oils are cheaper than saturated animal fats like butter, and for years were thought to be healthier. They are formed when liquid oil is treated with hydrogen gas and made solid. They became popular in fried and baked goods and in margarine. Crisco, originally marketed in the beginning of the 20th century, was the archetype, although it now contains no trans fat.

Official press release from the FDA:

In 2013, the FDA made a tentative determination that PHOs could no longer be considered GRAS [generally recognized as safe] and is finalizing that determination after considering public comments.

Since 2006, manufacturers have been required to include trans fat content information on the Nutrition Facts label of foods. Between 2003 and 2012, the FDA estimates that consumer trans fat consumption decreased about 78 percent and that the labeling rule and industry reformulation of foods were key factors in informing healthier consumer choices and reducing trans fat in foods. While trans fat intake has significantly decreased, the current intake remains a public health concern.

The Guardian:

The oils were popularized in the 1950s, when it was thought that they would be healthier than saturated fats. Americans turned to products such as trans fat-laden margarine in droves after the federal government recommended a cutback in saturated animal fats.

Today, there is a broad scientific consensus that the oils contribute to heart disease and are linked to type two diabetes.

A young nutritionist at the University of Illinois discovered some of the first evidence that the oils could be unhealthy in 1957, when he found large amounts of the fat in the clogged arteries of patients who died of heart attacks. The scientist, Fred Kummerow, followed that discovery with decades of scientific papers, despite that his findings wouldn't be widely accepted until decades later.

In August 2013, with the help of San Diego attorney Gregory S Weston, Kummerow sued the FDA for its inaction, saying it had violated the New Deal-era legislation that granted the FDA authority over food safety. By November, the FDA had responded to the lawsuit by issuing the tentative ruling.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @01:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @01:45PM (#197249)

    I simply wish that all corporations would be honest and upfront. Say the truth and let people decide. Don't ban anything but make it all legal and available. Does who choose healthy lives good for them. Freedom is about choice but we NEED to be FULLY informed. Screw profits and cost. There is enough wealth for everyone. So what if a company spends billions less or the gov make trillions more. Its all relative and illusory. Wake up everyone. Make all things, drugs, gambling, sex for cash LEGAL, but tell us how messed up it is to choose such paths. Make us responsible. If half of the worlds people die from overdose on anything so what, nothing ever dies anyways. Wake up.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17 2015, @02:50PM (#197284)

    Advertising and deception are the same thing. You'll never be able to legislate honesty into people, artificially-legally-constructed or otherwise, and if there's no consequences for lying why would anybody be honest? Living is a constant stream of risk:benefit analyses, but most people are stupid and lazy so you can't expect them to always be 100% properly informed all the time, especially in the US where the majority proudly boast of their willful ignorance and hatred of knowledge and learning, and its ordinary victim-blaming when you then blame those harmed because they don't have the time to properly research everything and don't even have access to the information or the ability to sort through and understand it all.

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:32PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:32PM (#197363)

      No, blaming them for not taking the proper precautions (informing themselves) is *not* "victim-blaming". If you can take reasonable precautions to prevent some bad thing from happening, and you don't, it's perfectly reasonable to blame someone for not doing so. After all, they themselves chose not to do so, so they're responsible for that choice.

      I'm tired of people using the phrase "victim-blaming" everywhere when it doesn't make even the slightest amount of sense. Victim-blaming is in situations where you're blamed for someone else's harmful actions (e.g. you're blamed for a rapist's choice to choose to rape you), not in situations where you're blamed for not taking reasonable precautions when they do exist. Quit with this idiocy.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:34PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday June 17 2015, @04:34PM (#197364)

        And if there are no reasonable precautions one could take, and someone else says there are, then explain to them why that is false rather than just saying it's "victim blaming".