Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
0

Does the FDA ban on trans-fats worry you?

by (480)
Updated about 6 hours ago
Created November 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I don't like trans-fats, heck I don't even touch the stuff or look at it for that matter, I think it's downright garbage. However, the CW-worshiping crowd that runs the FDA, USDA, and all these crap agencies often group trans-fats along with saturated fats, as many of us are aware of. Are you concerned that they might use this precedent to go after (our dear and precious) saturated fat? I sure as hell would not want to see my butter/coconut oil/cocoa butter/tallow/palm oil/lard disappear from the shelves. I know that not all trans-fats are being eliminated, just the added or isolated ones, the naturally occurring ones (CLA in ruminant meat, dairy) aren't being banned, since this would literally wipe out the entire beef/lamb/goat and dairy industry. So while I am less concerned about the likelihood of naturally occurring saturated fats being banned, I wonder about those that are isolated/refined. Heck, I love refined coconut oil for cooking as I'm sure many of you do too. Are you worried this crowd might try to impose their HeartHealthyWholeGrain, low-fat, soy-loving, cardboard-tasting food ideology on us? This time they might just be shafting the folks that eat crap food, but I don't want them shafting us Paleo/Primal/Low-carb folks tomorrow, specially since they would probably consider our high-fat, meat-loving, grain-free diet "crap" by their definition. P.S. no conspiracy theories please lol.

5ef0b727a7324ce050e71725a4810b59
0 · November 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM

@TheGastronomer: Your (second) post was well-written, and ... lol.

(On a more serious note, yes -- it would/does remove choice, somewhat like censorship.)

A7b6c0fc47c8a39a50d5399d74f2c521
0 · November 17, 2013 at 4:13 AM

I think they should just make the labeling requirements more strict to dissuade the use of trans fats, but I am not at all worried that this will be a slippery slope toward other food bans. The FDA is saying that trans fat producers must prove that trans fats are safe for consumption and all of the science says they are not, so it would in effect ban them. Saturated fats and such have certainly been shown to be safe to eat, and although they are incorrectly demonized, they could easily be shown to be safe for consumption.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I do stay away from restaurants for that reason...the thought of soybean oil turns me off to whatever food they might be peddling. They should at least tell you "By the way these scrambled eggs were fried in rancid soybean oil" or provide a list of ingredients for the things on their menu, which unfortunately not all of them do.

Medium avatar
15 · November 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM

They should at least ban their use in restaurants and take-away business, where you have no choice of eating your steak fried in a cheap oxidized oil.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I dont like crappy Omega 6 oils but banning them seems to take away people's choice. And besides it's kind of like forcing everyone else to eat paleo like you, which might seem fine to you since we are paleo, but I doubt these people are paleo by any stretch, do you really want them having the power to tell you what we can't eat? Just imagine what would happen if the upper management in the FDA was mainly vegetarians and vegans, would you like them banning your steaks because "they're bad for you" according to them. I don't feel comfortable with them having that kind of power.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Good point on the tobacco, that is still legal even though it's pretty damn toxic. I guess the same could be said about alcohol, heck they actually opened that can of worms and tried to ban in back in the 20's, that didn't go too well. I sure as hell wouldn't want them telling us how to eat specially with their holier-than-thou attitude.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I wholeheartedly agree and I definitely like your approach, they should just enforce labeling and proper disclaimers so that the consumer might be better aware of what they are buying, and make an informed decision with all the facts on their side. But banning foods just because they know (or at least think they know) what's good for us doesn't seem like a good approach.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7
215 · November 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Exept for sesame and walnut oil though. These are the two "flavour oils" and I think a lot of people (especially chefs) might get pissed off if they take those off the shelves. But I agree that there's no reason for refined, tasteless, odourless omega 6 rich oils to be available.

Total Views
1.2K

Recent Activity
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

Last Activity
349D AGO

Followers
5

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

4 Answers

best answer

3fc95bca9e723edfbbb72b172798ab49
0
1346 · November 16, 2013 at 2:01 AM

Of course you're referring to the "First they came..." phenomenon. Just because we may agree with a ban on trans-fats, does that make it okay? Because what if they knock on sat-fat's door next? Indeed it is a slippery slope into a nanny/police state, which is especially troubling when the nanny has no idea what is actually going on.

However, as glacierkn pointed out, this is only a ban on artifical trans-fats and I believe it only applies to those used in restaurants as well (leaving the personal grocery shopping to your margarine chugging discretion). Is this gateway legislation that can lead to mandatory whole grain injections? Eh, I think this is actually rather mild, but it does raise the question. If a discussion that worries you ends up in committee then keep a close eye on your representative Congress-critters and let them know how you feel about your diet and health.

A7b6c0fc47c8a39a50d5399d74f2c521
0 · November 17, 2013 at 4:13 AM

I think they should just make the labeling requirements more strict to dissuade the use of trans fats, but I am not at all worried that this will be a slippery slope toward other food bans. The FDA is saying that trans fat producers must prove that trans fats are safe for consumption and all of the science says they are not, so it would in effect ban them. Saturated fats and such have certainly been shown to be safe to eat, and although they are incorrectly demonized, they could easily be shown to be safe for consumption.

Medium avatar
0
15 · November 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM

The trans-fat thing only got an issue when the manufacturers started messing with PUFA-rich plant oils. If they had stayed with coconut oil, we never woud've gotten into this situation. The ban of trans-fats is just distracting from this. They should have banned of PUFA-oils instead.

14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7
215 · November 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Exept for sesame and walnut oil though. These are the two "flavour oils" and I think a lot of people (especially chefs) might get pissed off if they take those off the shelves. But I agree that there's no reason for refined, tasteless, odourless omega 6 rich oils to be available.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I dont like crappy Omega 6 oils but banning them seems to take away people's choice. And besides it's kind of like forcing everyone else to eat paleo like you, which might seem fine to you since we are paleo, but I doubt these people are paleo by any stretch, do you really want them having the power to tell you what we can't eat? Just imagine what would happen if the upper management in the FDA was mainly vegetarians and vegans, would you like them banning your steaks because "they're bad for you" according to them. I don't feel comfortable with them having that kind of power.

Medium avatar
15 · November 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM

They should at least ban their use in restaurants and take-away business, where you have no choice of eating your steak fried in a cheap oxidized oil.

Medium avatar
0
208 · November 16, 2013 at 5:56 AM

I'm against the ban (recently changed my mind) and would propose a strict label and disclosure rule for food manufacturers, sellers and restaurants. Tell people in clear language, written form, what is in the food they are buying and eating. Then you make the call. If you aren't smart enough to figure it out then get to learning. We label cigarettes with warnings but still sell them, why is that? They will surely destroy many lives but we don't care over the rights of wealthy tobacco industry folks. Maybe the trans fat industry hasn't bought off the regulators.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Good point on the tobacco, that is still legal even though it's pretty damn toxic. I guess the same could be said about alcohol, heck they actually opened that can of worms and tried to ban in back in the 20's, that didn't go too well. I sure as hell wouldn't want them telling us how to eat specially with their holier-than-thou attitude.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
480 · November 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I wholeheartedly agree and I definitely like your approach, they should just enforce labeling and proper disclaimers so that the consumer might be better aware of what they are buying, and make an informed decision with all the facts on their side. But banning foods just because they know (or at least think they know) what's good for us doesn't seem like a good approach.

10ec51c0e6e41939215a55316ad3d0b7
0
40 · November 15, 2013 at 11:13 PM

I read this article the other day:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ban-on-trans-fats-could-accelerate-deforestation

I think it's a ban on artificial trans fat, so coconut oil and palm oil might be more abundant in foods. But of course, the environment might take a hit.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes