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: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:17PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday June 18 2015, @03:17PM (#197842) Journal

    They have to make kitchen and bathroom sink faucets low lead, and they are. It's not like the infrastructure isn't already in place. It seemed it shouldn't be a big deal to also make shower and tub fixtures low lead, convert everything. Plus, since absolutely no one is doing it, I would think that at least one manufacturer would see a market opportunity in changing and being the only one to produce low lead shower and tub faucets, that they could advertise this fact and win some market share. They could charge premium prices too. I'm sure the superrich and rich would jump on a product like that.

    So much for market competition. Customers have a want that could easily be met but isn't, no manufacturer can be bothered. Another sign of their indifference is the confusion of standards. NSF 61 is the key standard, covering all kinds of stuff, including lead. You might think that if a product is marked NSF 61, it includes everything in the standard and it is low lead, but no. The low lead part is in "annex G". Has to say NSF 61-G, or it's not low lead. Confusing. You'd think "chapter 61" of a book would include section 61.1, 61.2, and so forth, but it seems manufacturers are flying against that convention. Perhaps it's somewhat deliberate? And it took me a while to dig up that information, which could be another sign that they don't want people poking into those details. It can also say NSF/ANSI 372 and be low lead, though I have not seen any fixtures with that label. 61 covers everything, while 372 is only about lead.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2