The Trans Fat Banned Wagon

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

In short, I think the cornsyrup-ification and transfat-acity of so much of our food is revolting, but I oppose the city wasting their time on this bullshit.
←

Truly, if all the kids can read and crime, drugs and poverty are not a factor in Philadelphia, hey, legislate some calorie counting and exercise for the fortunate citizens. City officals need to stir up public scorn???

The marketplace could not be a more effecient effective arena to accomplish this. There's trans fat free labels alll over the products in the stores. Restaurants could get some.

Not every problem needs a new law to bring resolution.

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

Which is a greater, vaster problem from a health point-of-view - sugar or transfats? So why all the focus on transfats?
←

Oh my God, Oh my God, I think I'm in love!!!!

SUGAR, boys and girls. It's sugar.

Get rid of trans fats, no worries. Good riddance. But if you got on the trans fat banned wagon (love that play on words) to save the world, consider the passive aggressive serial killer crystal sweet sugar.

And the 'artificial' sweeteners are worse.

Tell me please what's not artificial about sugar?

(Don't anybody forget I'm a cake baker ok?)

ludja · January 28, 2007

...
Which is a greater, vaster problem from a health point-of-view - sugar or transfats? So why all the focus on transfats?
←

I think it is also a concern and a discussion on the propogation of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in so many processed foods is an equally important topic of discussion although not directly related to the topic of this thread.

A similarity between trans fats and HFCS is that they are a substitute or added ingredient to so many items that people may or may not be aware of. One difference to me is that it seems easier to limit ones HFCS or sugar intake by the food choices one makes. Transfats are more difficult to avoid since they are used in many processes, foods and goods that are not made at home and the items, for example, baked goods at the supermarket bakery, may not have labels on them. Even without a label, it is still pretty easy to know when one is making a choice to eat a "sweet" item. (This, despite the fact that HFCS is "hidden" in some other processed foods, like ketchup.) I think that there will be increasing attention focused on the amount and pervasivness of HFCS; it is a related but separate issue from whether artificial transfats are truly harmful and should be removed from foods.

One thing that is also interesting is that it seems a great majority of people are willing to get behind bans on ingredients that are deemed carcinogenic. I am not sure how easy it is to correlate the exact risk and amounts of ingredients that will lead to cancer in an individual but the bans seem to be less controversial. For some reason, I guess that cardiovascular disease and Type II diabetes leading to heart attacks, strokes and other debilitating symptoms seem less threatening or more vague to people.

My two posts on this thread aside, I'm not sure where I stand right now on whether a ban of trans fats is a good idea or not for Philadelphia or elsewhere and whether it would even lead to a desired goal. What is the magic substitute ingredient that would replace trans fats and what is its longterm effect on health? Ultimately I think a more drastic change in people's food choices are what will be most important. However, if it has been shown that artifical transfats are really so bad why should they continue to be allowed to be hidden in such a large spectrum of food that is sold to consumers?

ludja · January 28, 2007

For additional information and links, here is the discussion on the trans fats ban in NYC: click

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

...
Which is a greater, vaster problem from a health point-of-view - sugar or transfats? So why all the focus on transfats?
←
I think it is also a concern and a discussion on the propogation of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in so many processed foods is an equally important topic of discussion although not directly related to the topic of this thread.
A similarity between trans fats and HFCS is that they are a substitute or added ingredient to so many items that people may or may not be aware of. One difference to me is that it seems easier to limit ones HFCS or sugar intake by the food choices one makes. Transfats are more difficult to avoid since they are used in many processes, foods and goods that are not made at home and the items, for example, baked goods at the supermarket bakery, may not have labels on them. Even without a label, it is still pretty easy to know when one is making a choice to eat a "sweet" item. (This, despite the fact that HFCS is "hidden" in some other processed foods, like ketchup.) I think that there will be increasing attention focused on the amount and pervasivness of HFCS; it is a related but separate issue from whether artificial transfats are truly harmful and should be removed from foods.
One thing that is also interesting is that it seems a great majority of people are willing to get behind bans on ingredients that are deemed carcinogenic. I am not sure how easy it is to correlate the exact risk and amounts of ingredients that will lead to cancer in an individual but the bans seem to be less controversial. For some reason, I guess that cardiovascular disease and Type II diabetes leading to heart attacks, strokes and other debilitating symptoms seem less threatening or more vague to people.
My two posts on this thread aside, I'm not sure where I stand right now on whether a ban of trans fats is a good idea or not for Philadelphia or elsewhere and whether it would even lead to a desired goal. What is the magic substitute ingredient that would replace trans fats and what is its longterm effect on health? Ultimately I think a more drastic change in people's food choices are what will be most important. However, if it has been shown that artifical transfats are really so bad why should they continue to be allowed to be hidden in such a large spectrum of food that is sold to consumers?
←

Trans fats are not hiding in produce for example (obviously). High fructose corn syrup is bad but it's a less expensive replacement for the sugar that's always been

in catsup

and bar-b-q chips

and salad dressing

and cereal

and baked beans

and spaghetti sauce

and wheat bread,

whole grain breads, (whole grain is 'better' for you, but it tends to taste like poo so let's add some sugar for palatability)

ahh, peanut butter,

in Kashi Go Lean 'health food cereal' there's evaporated cane juice (what the hell is that?)

and Worcestershire sauce,

the second ingredient in Lawry's seasoned salt is sugar,

my friggin 100% pure vanilla has corn syrup in it,

so I checked my can of Bake Ease Kroger brand easy release baking spray, it's got vanilla flavor which I'm sure contains some kind of sugar since my 100% pure vanilla does--in pan release spray??????

Umm Mueller's Multi Grain spaghetti's fifth ingredient is crystallized cane juice,

et cetera

et cetera.

And I guess hfcs has even more devils in it but sugar has enough to be the original and therefore the umbrella bad substance of the century I guess.

Sugar kicks trans fat's ass. No one is addicted to trans fats.

And sugar is in everything.

Can sugar (et al) be addictive??

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

Here's another thread about chefs supposedly whining about the ban.

I was never real clear on who was whining.

Vadouvan · January 28, 2007

Serpentine :

t's a pathetic move by City Council appear as if they are "positively impacting healthly food choices in Philadelphia blah blah blah" and a PR move for the city. What it is NOT is an attempt to make the city residents healthier, safer, or more willing to put down roots instead of relocating. In short, I think the cornsyrup-ification and transfat-acity of so much of our food is revolting, but I oppose the city wasting their time on this bullshit.

If you think it's revolting, why do you oppose the city doing something about it, that position makes no sense. Certainly municipal governments can br guilty of posturing at times but that isnt any rationale to turn a blind eye to what is a public health crisis.

Politicians only care about getting re-elected, whether or not you ban transfats isnt going to make up the voters mind. It's much more dangerous to know it and oppose anything being done about it than to not know it at all.

K8 MEMPHIS :

I think it is a market issue. I oppose it.

Probably because you own a bakery and it isnt out of any concern for anything but your bottom line ?

Edited January 28, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

Get rid of trans fats, no worries. Good riddance.
(Don't anybody forget I'm a cake baker ok?)
←

Serpentine :
t's a pathetic move by City Council appear as if they are "positively impacting healthly food choices in Philadelphia blah blah blah" and a PR move for the city. What it is NOT is an attempt to make the city residents healthier, safer, or more willing to put down roots instead of relocating. In short, I think the cornsyrup-ification and transfat-acity of so much of our food is revolting, but I oppose the city wasting their time on this bullshit.
If you think it's revolting, why do you oppose the city doing something about it, that position makes no sense. Certainly municipal governments can br guilty of posturing at times but that isnt any rationale to turn a blind eye to what is a public health crisis.
Politicians only care about getting re-elected, whether or not you ban transfats isnt going to make up the voters mind. It's much more dangerous to know it and oppose anything being done about it than to not know it at all.
K8 MEMPHIS :
I think it is a market issue. I oppose it.
Probably because you own a bakery and it isnt out of any concern for anything but your bottom line ?
←

Hehehe, how could one so clever be so wrong. I wish I owned a bakery, my friend.

Very simply, I oppose the city meddling. They should be concerned about drugs and can Johnny read and can he walk to the store without getting mugged. I have no problems getting rid of trans fats the way we usually pounce on food issues. People stop buying stuff. Owners scratch their heads, make a few changes, put up a sign "trans fat free' and away you go. The latest trend. Haute couture. Easy peasy. Tried & true.

Then later we find out it really wasn't necessary. We've done it with all kinds of food including but not limited to margarine that replaced butter, then butter that replaced margarine, apples, coffee, carbs, etc. The government has enough things to eff up, we need to make them keep their fingers out of our pie. Whatever. Life goes on. Johnny can't read, he sells dope, mugs and gets mugged. But God forbid he eats a cookie made with shortening. Seems a little shallow doesn't it.

Just for the record, I use some cake mix, and I'm not at all afraid of shortening, but my icings are all made with buttah. Wrong again. I'm not really a 'carrier.'

I carefully choose which hills I fight on. The ban of trans fat does not rise to my level of engagement. Even if one disagress with this position, I hope that this starts making sense at least.

Where your reasoning does start branching out into making sense is when you start talking 'bottom line'. There's nothing gets a merchant's attention like that can. Stop buying the products, they will catch on. It's no biggie.

Edited January 28, 2007 by K8memphis (log)

annecros · January 28, 2007

It's interesting to me that I need to own a restaurant to tell you that cost differences between natural and partially hydrogenated oils are minimal, but you somehow have standing to tell me that most scientists are wrong when they say there's a difference between natural and artificial trans fats. I'll give you the address to my restaurant after you let me swing by your laboratory, Doctor.
There's a lot more that I could say, but your responses are degenerating into a rambling incoherence that really isn't worth reading. I think I'll just leave you to your opinions. Have a great weekend!
←

I am just asking, do you know the difference in cost? They are in fact not minimal. You are not a scientist either, and everyone has the right to read and interpret what is out there and apply common sense. I always knew margarine was bad for me, but they force fed it to my father when he had a heart condition. I just thought it was yukky.

Thank you for your gracious permission to think for myself.

Now, what do you know about Cheez Whiz?

MarketStEl · January 28, 2007

Having now caught up with the discussion, I see that I'm in need of some re-education myself. I'll go pick up my Little Red Book tomorrow at the Widener bookstore, and for the next two weeks, you will be able to reach me in care of People's Nutritional Academy No. 3, Flat 2, Block 16, 1500 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, Pa.

Seriously -- and I see that this thread I started half in jest has gotten real serious real fast -- I think that this sort of ban is justifiable for the following reason:

In general, the cure for actions that can cause harm is providing information about the harm caused. Note that the simple action of requiring food manufacturers to list the amount of trans fat in the products they make has already led to many companies reformulating their foods to get rid of the trans fats before the requirement took effect.

Theoretically, this should work the same for a restaurant. If the local Chinese takeout were required to put a sign over the door saying "We fry our rice in partially hydrogenated soybean oil," customers could then choose to patronize the place knowing the risks or take their business elsewhere.

However: In many of the neighborhoods Vadouvan speaks of above, there are very few "elsewheres" for the customers to take their business. That Chinese takeout on the corner where the owner serves you behind thick Plexiglas is likely the only one that's convenient to the residents of the neighborhood, and no, they're not gonna hop on the 61 bus to go down to Chinatown and hunt for a restaurant with no sign over the door as an alternative.

In this case, banning the use of a product that plays a hidden role in the preparation of food, though a burden, is a relatively small one, and the added costs from switching to a trans-fat-free alternative are small enough that most consumers won't really be hit in their wallets. For all I mocked the mindset behind these food bans--and I do disagree with that mindset--this one has some justifiable public-health benefits.

But let's address the point that others have made about such substances as sugar, alcohol and water -- say, isn't that just about all there is in a Smirnoff Ice? -- by answering the question "So why aren't trans fats labeled on the block of New York State Cheddar I just bought?" (Which will by extension answer Anne's far more important question, "Will I still be able to enjoy a Whiz wit whenever?")

There are a host of naturally occurring substances that are beneficial in moderation but harmful when consumed to excess. As we have now learned from the tale of the woman who died while taking a shock jock up on a water-drinking challenge, even water is on this list. These substances have been consumed by humans for millennia, and while everyone knows the harm they can cause, we have--especially after the failure of Prohibition--wisely reached the conclusion that we cannot reduce the harm through outlawing them. Naturally occurring trans fats found in meat and cheese, if I understand one of the posts upthread properly, also fall into this category.

But then we go around and produce artificial products that also contain chemically different versions of these same substances. In these cases, we would apparently do well to heed that old ad tagline (from a TV ad for soft margarine, ironically), "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Apparently these man-made versions either lack the beneficial side effects of the naturally occurring ones or are more harmful when consumed at even modest quantities than the naturally occurring ones are. In such cases, knowing the increased harm and knowing that said harm can be reduced or eliminated completely simply by not using the artificial substances in question should lead us to at the minimum warn everyone about the presence and dangers of these substances and ultimately to stop using them where alternatives to them that produce comparable results exist.

In the case of artificial trans fats from partial hydrogenation, all of the above conditions are met, so the moral hazard from regulating them out of existence is minimal or nonexistent. At the supermarket, the proper approach is to inform the purchaser of the risk; at the restaurant, it's more appropriate to encourage the proprietor to remove the risk completely.

Note my use of the word "encourage" in the foregoing sentence. Even though I made fun of the proposed punishments in the City of Philadelphia ordinance in my initial post, they make sense from the standpoint of not placing an undue burden on the restaurant owner or cook, as fines would. To that extent, the proposed "punishments" answer the traditional libertarian objection to regulations of this type, even if they do so at the risk of making this ordinance a purely symbolic feel-good gesture. But if the restaurateurs get the message the way the manufacturers did when the USDA said, "You're gonna have to print the amount of trans fats on the label," then the ordinance will have done its job.

Now let me answer Anne's question explicitly. The harm you will suffer from eating that cheesesteak will be the same because the fats (trans and other) in the cheese and the steak are naturally occurring, and there's no way to reduce the harm without destroying the essence of the substances (think USDA Select beef and fat-free cheese). Ergo, no ban, and you can go ahead and wolf down as much Cheez Whiz as you care to eat, knowing that penance will come later in the form of either another inch around the midriff or another 20 minutes on the treadmill.

annecros · January 28, 2007

Now let me answer Anne's question explicitly. The harm you will suffer from eating that cheesesteak will be the same because the fats (trans and other) in the cheese and the steak are naturally occurring, and there's no way to reduce the harm without destroying the essence of the substances (think USDA Select beef and fat-free cheese). Ergo, no ban, and you can go ahead and wolf down as much Cheez Whiz as you care to eat, knowing that penance will come later in the form of either another inch around the midriff or another 20 minutes on the treadmill.
←

Thank you. I can live with that, and revel in my personal responsibility.

:biggrin:

HD73 · January 28, 2007

Thank you for a very reasonable and well-considered response to the issues on the thread so far Sandy. Just two nits to pick.

But let's address the point that others have made about such substances as sugar, alcohol and water -- say, isn't that just about all there is in a Smirnoff Ice? -- by answering the question "So why aren't trans fats labeled on the block of New York State Cheddar I just bought?" (Which will by extension answer Anne's far more important question, "Will I still be able to enjoy a Whiz wit whenever?")

It's definitely true that one of the reasons naturally occurring trans fats are "better" for us is that we are forced to consume them in moderation, unless we're whipping up ribeye and cheddar smoothies in the blender and chugging them on the hour. The other reason, however, is that there are real differences between the primary molecules that make up articial vs. natural trans fats.

Now, most of this evidence comes from epidemiological studies, meaning they took tons and tons of people and monitored them over a period of years. When they controlled for other factors in these people, artificial trans fat consumption correlated positively to heart disease. But when they controlled for artificial trans fat consumption (and all other factors) levels of natural trans fat consumption did NOT correlate positively with heart disease. Now, there are two possible explanations: 1) the different molecules act differently with regard to heart disease; 2) the study simply didn't have enough participants and the participants didn't eat enough naturally occurring trans fats to tease out the relationship.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that (2) is correct (although, in my personal opinion, that's unlikely). Should our conclusions about the benefits of a ban change? The problem still disappears when you get rid of the artificial trans fats, so the mechanism making them disappear really isn't all that important. I would bet that when someone really figures out these metabolic pathways, it turns out to be explanation (1), but do we really have to delay acting until we know exactly how trans fat acts?

In the case of artificial trans fats from partial hydrogenation, all of the above conditions are met, so the moral hazard from regulating them out of existence is minimal or nonexistent. At the supermarket, the proper approach is to inform the purchaser of the risk; at the restaurant, it's more appropriate to encourage the proprietor to remove the risk completely.

This one's just me being nitpicky and annoying, but the term "moral hazard" has a very specific meaning and this isn't it. I wouldn't want it to go the way of "beg the question" (no, it doesn't mean "really makes you want to ask the question", or at least it didn't used to).

JasonZ · January 28, 2007

Perhaps we should take a step back for a moment and look from another angle. No reason to get all bent out of shape in here.
←
Why does any individual need to tell me what to eat? Why?
I have no problem with labels, they are there for a reason, but why does another individual need to limit my decisions, because they are convinced it is better for me, even though they do not live my life?
Simple question. I am open to anyone who thinks that there is a reason to limit my decisions, or any other human being's decisions, because they are convinced that it is better for me, even though they do not live my life or in my skin.
←

Shacke and others, I couldn't agree with you more ... this discussion needs to come off boil and down to simmer, to consider the question and issues originally raised: is goverment action to ban [artificial] trans-fat use in commercially produced foods the right approach?

Governments are made up of people with all the same weaknesses we have. Science isn't static -- what was universally acclaimed as right 30 years ago is wrong today and vice versa. All we can do is make our own individual decisions, guided by the information we have. Government should provide that information and regulate (very gently) the limits of what is acceptable, but not place the limits so stringently that personal choices not affecting anyone else are restricted. Ideal, yes, but so long as we live ina society where individual freedom is the highest value, that is the goal.

I am reminded of the situation with the "MSG syndrome" in Chinese restaurants in the 70's. The syndrome was described in medical journals (notably the New

England Journal of Medicine), trickled down to the newspapers ... and Chinese restaurants either eliminated MSG or gave customers the option to specify no MSG. Voluntarily. No government edicts. No impact on pricing. Yes, some impact on food taste. Adopted by both high-end and low-priced restaurants.

In the end, it became a commercial advantage (until everyone did it) to advertise, "no MSG used". Certain restaurants today list on their menu "cooked in vegetable oil -- no animal fat used". Restaurants today offer "Heart Healthy meals", "AHA meals", meals adapted for diabetics -- because it can be a commercial advantage. Can't "no artificial transfats used" become the same?

I'm not sure that high-end restaurants use no transfats. Certainly, if you claim to be a "traditional French cuisine" specialty house, you'll use butter (maybe even imported from France, rather than made from Wisconsin milk :rolleyes: ), but if you're an American steakhouse, or do eclectic or original cuisine -- will the temptation of "doesn't spoil and better mouthfeel" be enough? What about desserts, in moderate to high end restaurants? How many restaurants, especially those without a pastry chef, buy their desserts from a specialty purveyor? What does that purveyor use? How deep are we willing to dig for answers?

Given that trans-fat users may not follow the Chinese restaurant MSG route, perhaps instead of a ban, enforced with "public shame", the remedy should be disclosure of any artificial transfats used by that purveyor to make the item (akin to the "this product was made or packaged in a facility that also makes or packages peanuts" label, ie, a label, but not requiring the detailed analysis that a label requires). Perhaps the remedy should be a tax on trans-fat purchase used to fund a public education campaign re trans-fats, because while we may be knowledgeable on the topic, many people with marginal incomes may not have that knowledge ... or may not know how much trans-fat they are getting in that fast meal.

Ultimately, we're faced with two issues that don't really belong in eG: people may not have a choice to make -- economically they're forced to eat whatever is the least expensive at that moment, rather than in the long term ... and ultimately, whether under the current system or any other system, we will all bear whatever long-term health costs are caused by the food we eat. We are all, to a certain degree, our brother's keepers ... we all eat from the same trough and pay taxes for the common good ...

annecros · January 28, 2007

Now, most of this evidence comes from epidemiological studies, meaning they took tons and tons of people and monitored them over a period of years. When they controlled for other factors in these people, artificial trans fat consumption correlated positively to heart disease. But when they controlled for artificial trans fat consumption (and all other factors) levels of natural trans fat consumption did NOT correlate positively with heart disease. Now, there are two possible explanations: 1) the different molecules act differently with regard to heart disease; 2) the study simply didn't have enough participants and the participants didn't eat enough naturally occurring trans fats to tease out the relationship.
←

Have you read the studies? The are correlative, not causitive. There were no "controls" concerning heredity, other dietary factors, or just plain double blinds.

HD73 · January 28, 2007

Now, most of this evidence comes from epidemiological studies, meaning they took tons and tons of people and monitored them over a period of years. When they controlled for other factors in these people, artificial trans fat consumption correlated positively to heart disease. But when they controlled for artificial trans fat consumption (and all other factors) levels of natural trans fat consumption did NOT correlate positively with heart disease. Now, there are two possible explanations: 1) the different molecules act differently with regard to heart disease; 2) the study simply didn't have enough participants and the participants didn't eat enough naturally occurring trans fats to tease out the relationship.
←
Have you read the studies? The are correlative, not causitive. There were no "controls" concerning heredity, other dietary factors, or just plain double blinds.
←

Anne, here's a quick break down about the difference between epidemiological studies and experimental studies.

-Experimental studies involve scientists actually performing experiments by altering conditions somewhat (giving someone a pill or varying any other condition. This is where techniques like double blinds come in. There is also a "control" group, which is what I guess you think I'm talking about above.

-Epidemiological studies involve scientists doing nothing but observing. They don't vary conditions at all, they just collect data. Once the data is collected, you apply statistical techniques, specifically multiple regression, to "control" for various factors to prevent comparing apples to oranges and to try to discover correlation between factors.

No one has ever or is ever going to perform experimental trans-fat studies in humans for the same reason we don't perform experimental lead studies in humans. It's unethical, and even if it weren't, who is going to volunteer to ingest the lead? There has never been a "double blind" study of trans-fat.

Instead, scientists perform epidemiological studies. They use regression analysis to control for certain factors (by artificially holding them constant). In this case, some factors controlled would be hereditary history, intake of other fats, etc.

Edited to add: And you're absolutely right about the distinction between correlation and causation. If you want to get all "philosophy of science" about it, there's no such thing as a study of causation. Just hypotheses we can't seem to disprove that suggest causation. But the fact that correlation does not equal causation is a "problem" with all science, and it certainly doesn't affect these studies more other similar studies.

Edited January 28, 2007 by HD73 (log)

docsconz · January 28, 2007

This NYT Magazine article by Michael Pollan should IMO be required reading for this discussion. It is being discussed here.

It offers elements that can be used in support of the proposed ban and elements that can be used to argue against it.

JasonZ · January 28, 2007

I don't know about others, but I have read some (not all) of these studies. You are right -- they are correlative, they were not randomized or blinded, and they did not control for heriditary factors and certain other factors. That is the nature of eipidemiological studies -- they are observational studies (meaning they do not randomize the populations to a given set of treatments) and they assume that by using a large enough population (tens or hundreds of thousands) that factors they have not controlled for (hereditary differences, for example) will "naturally" be randomized between the various groups.

Correlation is not causation ... but if you get enough well-designed correlative studies, and long-term longitudinal studies (studies that follow a population over many years), you can reach conclusions which have a reasonable probability of being true. The most famous such example is the Framingham study, started in the late 40's, now studying its 3rd generation of individuals (so they are starting to look at heridity in the real sense), which defined the relationships between high blood pressure and cholesterol to stroke and heart disease.

In order to control for other factors, first, you'd have to know what factors to control for (I don't know all the genes I'd want to include in a screen and I've been doing this for 20 years); you'd have to have someone pay for the genetic screening and have potential subjects agree to the testing (and that raises both an ethical issue -- suppose the subject now knows he/she has a risk gene -- do you inform their insurance company, employer, personal physician? -- and what scientists call a "selection bias" issue -- are the people who have signed up no longer representatitve of the population as a whole?) and you'd have to get matched demographics -- so not just as many males as females and as many with gene X and without gene X, but as many males with gene X as males without gene X and as many females with gene X as without ... and by the time you add gene Y and gene Z, and other factors ... you have a population of millions and a cost to match ....

In medicine, and in drug development, and in government health policy, we often have to make decisions based on all the data we have, knowing we can't get the perfect studies we'd like ...

annecros · January 28, 2007

Anne, here's a quick break down about the difference between epidemiological studies and experimental studies.
-Experimental studies involve scientists actually performing experiments by altering conditions somewhat (giving someone a pill or varying any other condition. This is where techniques like double blinds come in. There is also a "control" group, which is what I guess you think I'm talking about above.
-Epidemiological studies involve scientists doing nothing but observing. They don't vary conditions at all, they just collect data. Once the data is collected, you apply statistical techniques, specifically multiple regression, to "control" for various factors to prevent comparing apples to oranges and to try to discover correlation between factors.
No one has ever or is ever going to perform experimental trans-fat studies in humans for the same reason we don't perform experimental lead studies in humans. It's unethical, and even if it weren't, who is going to volunteer to ingest the lead? There has never been a "double blind" study of trans-fat.
Instead, scientists perform epidemiological studies. They use regression analysis to control for certain factors (by artificially holding them constant). In this case, some factors controlled would be hereditary history, intake of other fats, etc.
Edited to add: And you're absolutely right about the distinction between correlation and causation. If you want to get all "philosophy of science" about it, there's no such thing as a study of causation. Just hypotheses we can't seem to disprove that suggest causation. But the fact that correlation does not equal causation is a "problem" with all science, and it certainly doesn't affect these studies more other similar studies.
←

OK, here is a practical, real world example. People with heart disease or at risk for heart disease were ordered by their doctors to consume more transfats in the form of margarine over the course of about 30 years. They were also told to use vegetable oil (crisco) instead of animal fats.

Did the heart disease kill them? Did the transfat laden diet kill them? How do you determine that?

Label all you like, let people make up their minds. That's all I am saying.

I'll have that cheese steak wit whiz. I only get to eat a few of them over my lifetime, and wish to enjoy them in the intended form.

Vadouvan · January 28, 2007

Katieloeb...

This thread is the reson E-gullet needs to create 2 new boards :

The Food Politics Board

and the

I Like to Hear Myself Talk Board.

So the PA, NY "RESTAURANTS,CUISINE board can actually be used for that purpose.

annecros · January 28, 2007

Katieloeb...
This thread is the reson E-gullet needs to create 2 new boards :
The Food Politics Board
and the
I Like to Hear Myself Talk Board.
So the PA, NY "RESTAURANTS,CUISINE board can actually be used for that purpose.
←

Ick. The thought of that just skeeves me out. I think of eGullet as a refuge.

I will shut up now.

:biggrin:

Jeff L · January 28, 2007

Katieloeb...
This thread is the reson E-gullet needs to create 2 new boards :
The Food Politics Board
and the
I Like to Hear Myself Talk Board.
So the PA, NY "RESTAURANTS,CUISINE board can actually be used for that purpose.
←

V, let me second the motion. Enough already

KatieLoeb · January 28, 2007

OK folks. We're getting snarky again. I will lock the topic if we don't play nice and stop throwing sand around, OK? If you're tired of reading it then simply STOP. Easy solution.

Well thought out and articulate posts are welcome to stay and be added.

wkl · January 28, 2007

never mind.

Edited January 28, 2007 by wkl (log)

K8memphis · January 28, 2007

...I am reminded of the situation with the "MSG syndrome" in Chinese restaurants in the 70's. The syndrome was described in medical journals (notably the New
England Journal of Medicine), trickled down to the newspapers ... and Chinese restaurants either eliminated MSG or gave customers the option to specify no MSG. Voluntarily. No government edicts. No impact on pricing. Yes, some impact on food taste. Adopted by both high-end and low-priced restaurants.
In the end, it became a commercial advantage (until everyone did it) to advertise, "no MSG used". Certain restaurants today list on their menu "cooked in vegetable oil -- no animal fat used". Restaurants today offer "Heart Healthy meals", "AHA meals", meals adapted for diabetics -- because it can be a commercial advantage. Can't "no artificial transfats used" become the same?

Yeah ^^^ What he said ^^^ It's a market place fix. It works really well. Politicians need to be left alone to divise bigger and better ways of picking our pockets.

Umm, you expect fat in cookies and french fries and etc.

Did you expect sugar which is addictive in your pan release spray, peanut butter, potato chips (my other personal addiction) and pasta? C'mon, pasta?

If the government wants to get the job done, why don't they interfere with the manufacture of the stuff, the cartels rather than the pushers and users.

But still yet, the market can get it done.

Doc, I waded through 7 pages of that link.

I just know sugar is not my friend yet I make my living with it. :rolleyes:

ludja · January 28, 2007

This NYT Magazine article by Michael Pollan should IMO be required reading for this discussion. It is being discussed here.
It offers elements that can be used in support of the proposed ban and elements that can be used to argue against it.
←

Excellent article; thank you for linking to it here.

Sign In

The Trans Fat Banned Wagon

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members