 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2004Feds target trans fats
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html OTTAWA -- Canada is on the way to becoming the second country in the world to limit trans fats. The House of Commons passed an NDP motion last night calling for regulations or legislation within one year that would virtually ban the artery-clogging substance from food sold in Canada. Trans fat, found in hydrogenated vegetable oil, became widely used after concern was raised in the 1970s about the link between saturated fats and heart disease. Trans fats are in most baked and fried food, many "low-fat" products and in foods children eat, such as fish sticks and frozen waffles. On Jan. 1, Denmark became the first country to impose a limit on them. ******** The NDP is the New Democratic Party, a left of center party, dreaded socialists. Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider protecting American consumers like this. TC >http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Fat chance that the right wing (Bush & company) would ever consider >protecting American consumers like this. Australia has most of the trans fats removed from margerine. Apparanetly voluntarily. There was an ophthalmologist here recently claiming that vegetable oils were blinding thousands from macular degeneration. He was going on American studies, and when looked at here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow to blame. >> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > here, there was no problem. It is apparently the trans fats somehow to > blame. Many American margarines have low levels of trans fats. They claim to have none, or zero grams per serving, or both. The reality is that they contain some, but the government allows them to round down to the nearest gram. Since serving size is arbitrary, it's not too hard to come up with a portion that has .499999 grams and say it's trans-fat-free. Realistically, that's still better than something that has high levels of trans fats, and I don't object to them saying 0g/serving if the government made that the rule (not that I agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts. >>> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >that I agree with the rule,) but I think it's going too far when they say >that they have no trans fats if they have even trace amounts. I agree in principle, but how much trans fat does butter contain? Does it have to say how much in your country? And what problems does a trace amount cause? Are we getting our knickers in a twist about nothing? >>>> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > trace amount cause? Are we getting our knickers in a twist about > nothing? Butter is not the problem. The problem is that the rule says that manufacturers can round down to zero when there's less than a half gram PER SERVING. But it's up to a manufacturer to decide what constitutes a serving size. Something could contain 1.5 grams of trans fat if a person routinely uses three tablespoons, but if the manufacturer puts a serving size at slightly under one tablespoon, it might say that it has no trans fat. If the margarine is just one of many ingredients in a meal that "contain no trans fat," it could add up quickly. It would not be hard to put together a meal with 6g or more, even if the consumer thinks there is none. Is 18g per day the same as zero? If one product contains .5 grams of trans fat, and the serving size is realistic, and another brand contains 0 grams, it will cause confusion. If I see that a serving size is not realistic, my instinct would be to multiply. But 3x0=0, not 1.49. As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems wrong. > As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high > levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for > themselves. If they do allow rounding, I wouldn't mind if it took into > account the total weight of a portion. If a tablespoon weighs 5 grams > total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems > wrong. This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many processed foods. Preston >> As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that >> has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Preston If you disagree with me, are you saying that high levels of trans fats are better, or are you saying that it's fine not to disclose trans fats? >>> As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that >>> has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are > better, or are you saying that it's fine not to disclose trans fats? I read this to say he is in total agreement with you. -DF >>>> As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that >>>> has high levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I read this to say he is in total agreement with you. Yes. Exactly. Preston >> As I said, realistically, that's still better than something that has high >> levels of trans fats. But I'd still like consumers to be able to decide for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This is especially wrong given the ubiquity of trans fats in so many >processed foods. Perhaps "manufactured" rather than "processed"? Processed seems to mean more "refined" to me, "things removed", rather than "new foodstuffs made from many ingredients in a factory"? But I'm not sure how it would be regarded in America. What do folks think "processed" means to them? >>>>> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/11/24/728095.html >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >total, and it's almost 10% trans fat, telling me that there's none seems >wrong. I agree. I understand that in Australia, the limit for saying zero, is 0.5%, but I might be out on this. The fact remains though that Australian marges have very little trans fats, and so the retinal problems found in USA were not found here. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.