Again: 'Trans-fat free' does not mean 'good for you'

Can you say "hydrogenated oils," boys and girls? Here's an easier way: trans fats.

Now that you can pronounce the name (which even sounds fun and decadent -- in a synthetic kind of way), bid these rich friends farewell. They are already harder to get in nationally marketed products, and California's governor has told the state's restaurants to find something else to put in their food.

Oh, sure, synthetic trans fats help foods stay fresh longer and give them that nice mouth feel that people so love. (It's OK to admit you liked Oreos even before the recipe changed. Who wouldn't?)  And from pretty much any perspective, trans fats beat lard. Alas, they also raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol and just generally muck about with your heart, as the Mayo Clinic notes.

So the ban is hard to argue with from a health standpoint. But please -- please, please, please -- remember that "no trans fats" isn't another way of saying "eat more." Because something has to replace those fats. And it's probably not going to be vegetable fiber.

The bill's backers may have been trying to protect those Californians overly reliant on fast food and that's a fine goal to be sure. But if you're thinking the change is carte blanche to engage in care-free gluttony, think again. Can you say "saturated fats"? Here's another way: also bad.

Check out this primer on fats from the American Heart Assn. And then go buy yourself some nice olive oil.

For a comprehensive look at the trans-fat saga, here's Zero guilt?, about our early enchantment and growing disillusionment with the stuff. And here's a list of possible replacements: For substitutes, scientists look to the old and the new. And, heck, just to keep you on your toes: Natural trans fats may be good for you.

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Dunkin' Donuts has already removed trans fats from its products. They're still great, but healthful?

Credit: Lisa Poole / AP

Comments

[Al Ward]

Great! Now they should ban high-fructose corn syrup, refined wheat, monosodium glutimate and aspartame. People need to get smarter about food also. I believe that people should still have access to these substances, but only if they understand what they do to your body.

[steven]

nice move Arnold!
hopefully other states will follow soon.

[peggy]

Al Ward, it is plausible to ban manufactured trans fats because they are a quite recent, totally artificial ingredient in food; cause known, documented, undisputed and very specific types of damage to several of the body's organ systems and tissues; and otherwise have no redeeming nutritional value (apart from fat calories).

It is not possible to say that about high-fructose corn syrup, refined wheat, monosodium glutamate, or even aspartame. I agree that none of these things (with the possible exception of MSG, for which the story is more complex), if we were really careful, ought to make up a frequent part of our diets. But the evidence is not conclusive enough that any of them are so ruinous, and so totally without merit, as to be banned.

If I had to pick one to go away from restaurant and processed foods, it'd be the high-fructose corn syrup.

Refined wheat and glutamates are old foods that have been around for a reasonably long time in the human diet and in human culture. Aspartame may be excitotoxic (may be!) but has some merit for folks like diabetics.

I just started reading this blog today and got sucked in because I saw that Tami Dennis refuses to use the words "veggies," "tummy," and "yummy." I had no idea that there was someone else in the world who hated these words as much as I do. Especially "yummy." I would not cry if I never saw or heard that word again.

(I suggest the semi-abbreviation and sort-of-British word "veg" as a substitute for "veggies." Much less cutesy and does the same job.)

[peggy]

By the way. There is some reason to believe that not all saturated fats are bad for the health. The saturated fats found in coconut and in chocolate may not be damaging; it is possible that they may even be healthful. I think the case is stronger for cocoa butter than for coconut oil, though.

[Joel Scotten]

The recent law banning trans fat in California restaurants is an immediate threat to the liberty of all Americans. Termite legislation such as this causes the slow erosion to the foundations of freedom in our country.

Our government, state or federal, has no right to dictate what a person should eat or the type of food a restaurant can sell. This is a matter between the owners and customers. No statist argument can replace the rights of man to act on his own judgment. The proper role of government is to protect man’s rights, not their colons.

If we do not stand up against tyranny now, we will soon find ourselves having no rights, freedom or liberty.

As Ayn Rand wrote so eloquently,” The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”

[John C.]

That nice mouth feel people so love? You mean, feeling like your mouth is coated with insoluble grease? Are you kidding me? Are we a nation of idiots? The resounding answer is YES, sadly. The issue is that businesses, corporations, have not wanted to shell out the few extra cents to change to a fat that doesn't clog arteries because of profit loss. Obese equals loss of quality of life and higher healthcare costs.

[Carabuser]

Yes,

Let's ban these because they are bad for you, but it is still ok to kill your baby in the good old USA, right ?

[randy]

My libertarian friend above makes a good point.

We should not control the things people ingest. Within reason of course. Moderation is the key. I don't feel the need to control a person's weight or their overall health or even how they go about exercising or spending their leisure time. You are not a nanny and you don't need to tell someone to put down that Oreo. Stop grandstanding, soapboxing, or whatever the hell you do to marginalize the freedoms that we have.

If we want to help educate people in what they are ingesting, that is fine. I believe that would be an awesome way to use tax money and would probably cover a larger spectrum of health concerns - something an outright ban of a substance will not do.

[susan]

Trans fats are evil, and its important to remember that zero trans fat does not equal no trans fat; it can still have up to half a gram per serving. I think Trans Fat and High Fructose Corn Syrup are the most evil things invented.

[Dougie Doctor]

Despite what you may have read, in the end we're all dead. So enjoy some junk food sometimes, just don't make it a regular part of your diet or you may meet your maker before you've gotten your todo list done.

I think a fat tax would be fairer, after all its no use prohibiting adults from most activities, it only creates a blackmarket, cannabis comes to mind. Shall we have a trans fat gang smuggling junk food? Give the people what they want and tax to incentivise behavior, just don't tax too high or you've still got a black market.