Talk:Trans fat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Trans fat has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
Trans fat is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Question

Any study related how it affects the consumption of transfat foods for a pregnant woman? As we knew, pregnant woman always craves for food they see in the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinmacabasco (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Question

How do different oils compare in regard to home cooking. For example, as I understand it, olive oil is good for you in salad dressings, but in frying with olive oil the oil will easily become a trans fat. Is it possible to list cooking oils (olive, peanut, sesame, rape-seed(canola), sunflower, etc.) in order of susceptibility to becoming 'trans' during cooking?

This is a good question because it represents a common misunderstanding - you are correct in that heated oil can become dangerous, but not because trans fats are formed. Rather, heated unsaturated oils can become peroxides or other similar unhealthful chemicals. The most stable oils are saturated ones, such as coconut oil or palm oil (or butter, although it can burn easily). Frankg 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You can medium-temperature fry with olive oil.. not too hot because olive oil has a relatively low smoke point. The main reason olive oil is not used for frying is cost.

[edit] Question

How does the product "Benecol" (a margarine-like spread) claim to have "No Trans Fat" while its 3rd and 7th ingredients are "Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil" and "Hydrogenated Soybean Oil?" Is there some way of separating the cis fat from the trans fat? Is it a secret proprietary method or just difficult and/or expensive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.38.7 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

From what i've read in a food magazine, the term "partially hydrogenated" means a mixture of non-hydrogenated and fully hydrogenated fat, and not trans-fat as one might believe. /Gustaf Rydevik 81.227.165.12

"Partially hydrogenated" oil always contains trans fat. The company that makes Benecol is probably taking advantage of the fact that less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving can be labeled as "no" trans fat. Frankg 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of commercial response from national regulation

I have tried to split the commercial stuff from (primarily) the US regulatory frameworks and municipal salvos.

The most noticeable change in content (as opposed to reorg) that this produced is that I decided to try to reduce all the "such and such a company is making this specific type of change by this exact date" type content. IMO (and this is just my opinion) the Trans fat article is the wrong place for blow-by-blow details of what every chain is doing and when. This information is better placed on the page of the chain. I have retained a reference for each company, preferably to a press release that has their gory details, should someone wish to track the information down. I did retain fuller descriptions of Kraft and KFC because they were the subject of notable/notorious lawsuits. For some reason the walt disney theme parks and products seemed notable as well so I retained that content.

I would be happy to hear what people think of the reorg and the handling of the individual companies. -- cmhTC 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I am happy with the quality of the article now. I'm also requesting a peer review to get more eyes on it. -- cmhTC 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Trans fats' as a goal of hydrogenation

I'm making a pass through the article because I've realized that the article implies that trans fats are desirable for industry, and that they are the goal of hydrogenation. This is not true. The goal is to harden liquid oils, and reduce the number of double bonds to limit rancidity. The fact that the remaining double bonds become 'trans' bonds is a side effect of the process that adds hydrogen. -- cmhTC 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone please add a brief sentence to this article, explaining: Why would a "cis bond" molecule turn into a "trans bond" molecule? To this non-chemist, it seems that any particular fat molecule would either (a) not react with the hydrogen, staying the same, or (b) react with the hydrogen, becoming saturated. --75.19.73.101 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion: Chains eliminating trans fats

I am thinking of removing the other chains that are eliminating trans fat. This is the bulleted list at the bottom of the Food industry response section. My reasoning is that this isn't a complete list, and WP is not a directory, collection of links, etc.

This begs the question of what criteria should be used to determine which companies SHOULD be listed in this section.

In my view, if a chain or product has become particularly notable for its trans fat (e.g. Crisco, Kraft, McDonalds, KFC, etc.) then it is notable here. But simply saying "we removed the generic crisco from our biscuits" is more than adequately covered on the company's own page. -- cmhTC 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So far you've removed the European companies that have removed trans fats and kept the USA ones. Your idea of notability seems to be a bit country-specific. Nunquam Dormio 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'm not sure how to approach that. Most of the big things relevant to Trans Fat from a corporate perspective have happened in the states (where I am not, by the way, I'm in Canada). It may be an artifact of transnational junk food chains being a US phenomenon. Are you aware of any others that should be listed? I am open to suggestions, or better yet -- please add/remove from that section to improve it. -- cmhTC 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on a Category:Transfat Free Guaranteed or some variation? Most of the major chains are making promises now, but a visible indication they've followed through would be very helpful to people trying to make healthier choices. LeadSongDog 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commendation

I stumbled upon this article today, and it is very well done. It may be ready very soon for GA nomination.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important topic that continues to receive growing attention in the media; cmh deserves a lot of credit for keeping it updated, informative, and neutral. Frankg 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. -- cmhTC 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industry changes to the trans fat article

I have received the following today by email:

I have reviewed your contribution to Wikipedia on the subject of "trans fat" with interest. It is apparent that you have spent considerable time in researching this subject and you are to be commended for collecting and summarizing a large amount of information on trans fats.

I have followed the trans fat issue closely for over 20 years, as I represent the fat and oils processing industry in the U.S. I have taken the liberty of making some modifications in your original text to provide improved balance and remove bias. If you have any questions regarding any of the changes, please feel free to contact me.

RMR

Robert M. Reeves, President
Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, Inc.

I have removed the contact information, which I will make available upon request rather than putting it in the database.

The changes appear to have been made to an older version of the article, and some recent changes have been obliterated. I believe that the edits are made in good faith, but I am not sure that we have a less biased article today. I have not yet read the changes in detail, but I think we should have a discussion here before proceeding. Editors are invited to give their thoughts. Otherwise I'll go through the edits in a little bit and try to make some proposals. -- cmhTC 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This attempt at POV by the food industry must be stopped at all costs, up to and including a total rewrite or deletion and recreation as a stub to be expanded! Wikipedia will NOT be used to spread propaganda and lies!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not that bad. I am bothered by some of the modifications (mostly when references are removed) but most of the changes were minor. In fact, I am encouraged that an industry figure would take the time to open up communications about the issue. Frankg 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Removal of the references is what bothered me the most, followed by the weasel words. Problem's been fixed for now anyway. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The industry user appears to have been blocked. Not sure about that, seems a bit on the harsh side. I think some of the material might have been OK. It would likely be best to merge in content from their edit into the article instead of trying to edit from their old revision anyway. Seems like a WP:BITE to me though.

Frankg, do you think we should get that user unblocked? -- cmhTC 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 indefblocked him for taking the name of an organization, not for the edits however POV they are. Apparently that's against the rules.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to warn you, with the heightened profile of this subject material, about trolls or good-faith contributors attempting to edit from <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/transfat.html" target=_"blank">this POV</a>, as I continue to encounter it in discussion forums elsewhere despite its outdated info and clearly industry-biased POV, but I'm sure you're on top of it. Fascinating article, btw. 64.57.108.181 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reader.
No real opinion on the blocking, but it would be worth looking through the edit in question and picking out anything that might fit well in the actual article. Frankg 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the ban. I'm glad it wasn't because of the edit. Ok. I don't have time for this tonight, but I will go through and restore parts of the edit that seem balanced. -- cmhTC 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. Try to avoid his weasel words and removal of sources is all I ask. You have an excellent day, sir. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes from review of industry-supplied material

  • Intro: Discarding their changes to introductory material in general. Weasel wording of "sufficient quantity" to be a health risk is in conflict with the major scientific consensus material cited in this article. Their other diffs here were largely rollbacks due to them working with an older version of the article.
  • Presence in food: I removed their assertion that 20-25% of trans consumed are from animal sources. This claim is removed as WP:OR as I don't see this in the cited article (which I have now read). I removed our assertion that shortenings are partially hydrogenated. This is false as there are expeller pressed shortenings that are non-hydrogenated. Replaced vague assertion about margarine's content with facts from the article they cited. I removed our weasel wording insinuating that manufacturers use hydrogenated oils for cost reasons. We don't have the data to support that, and the brief web searching I did indicates it may not be cheaper, at least for frying. I also reorganized things a bit and connected the fast food content to frying which was not really discussed in this section before.
  • Nutritional guidelines: I have removed all their changes in this section. The (IMO) offensive statement that the NAS guidelines are based on assumptions was particularly bad. The 5-6% number is unsourced, and does not agree with most reliable sources cited in the article. The Hunter article, if that was the source, is a meta-analysis of self-report studies with estimations of likely trans content. The existing articles are much more rigourous.
  • History: Replaced our content concerning the financial aspects as this is sourced directly from the article. Compromise wording on the artificially hardened oils question by using wording found in the source. Their change to correlational language in the medical hypotheses reference is a sign that they either didn't read the source, or are trying to pull something; I put the causational language used by the source back.
  • Chemistry: I kept their expert information that length and time of process also matters.
  • Health risks: I have largely reverted this material. The material appears designed to weasel word things that were well supported. Other additions appear to be inappropriate for this section of the document, or consist of long out-of-date research. I think this section was largely balanced.
  • Public response and regulation: Removed blurb at start of this section. Ours was slanted and theirs made assertions that some countries had chosen not to regulate, without citation... really the thing was factless so I cut it. I retained their correction concerning nutritional claims allowed by the FDA, and also their clarification on NYC limits.
  • External links: I felt the added links did not add significant information to the topic of trans fats that are not already present in the article.

Comments welcome. -- cmhTC 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CMH, I love you. It's perfect!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we go about nomming this thing for 'Good Article' status? I believe it's at least A-class.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I would like to see this article nominated for WP:GA or at WP:FAC. Both of those require a stable article (not too many big changes) and this one is seeing a lot of action after the NYC trans fat captured the media's attention. I hope it'll be proposed for FA status in the next few months. -- cmhTC 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by User:Eric Kvaalen

I partially reverted this edit. First, thanks for cleaning up some details in the chemistry section. I left most of those, only removing the hedges about the block diagram which I dealt with by clarifying that it's a diagram in the title. I doubt people will be getting out protractors anyway. I reverted the Hu section because first, my reading of Hu is that he is specific that the trans stats refer to to each incremental 2% increase, so changing it to imply the data is valid only for 1-3% is going against the source IMO. I also think the new wording is simply more confusing than the original. I did leave your addition of the confidence interval because I thought that was a good idea. Regarding the introduction, I don't think the addition of caloric "value" is relevant to trans fats specifically. The comment by the NAS is clearly meant to refer to trans fats qua trans fats and the caloric thing just seems like a sideshow. I left a few grammatical things my way because they read better to me in Canadian english, but I guess I wouldn't scream if they were swapped again. -- cmhTC 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation to place trans fat into its own category

Why do I say this? They're very different from the rest of the "unsaturated" fats, in that sources are almost exclusively man-made in this day and age. Odin of Trondheim 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw some knowledge into the trans-fat / trans fatty acid discussion: Conjugated Linoleic Acid is in fact, a trans fatty acid. In studies it has been shown to lower risk / benefit health concerning: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity. It is a form provided by beef. Studies conducted at the University of Missouri - Columbia show increased ocurence in beef carcass meat when intensive grazing methods have been used (increased grass consumption with decreased grain consumption). This is not to say that grain fed cattle produce less of this benificial trans fatty acid, only that pasture feeding increases it's occurence. I am unsure of the relation of this befeficial trans fatty acid to linoleic acid found in soybeans. I have only heard that a genetically engineered variety of soybean was produce that does not contain this (linoleic) acid.

````concerned student @UM-C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.206.43 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A picture would be good

Anyone have a picture of, like, a big tub of hydrogenated oil? If consumers saw what they were eating, they might be a little less tolerant of products containing trans fats. A block of Crisco might do, but people have probably been desensitized to its appearence and texture for too long for it to have an impact. Vranak 23:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate

Well, after 6 months of work (with thanks to all you other contributors too) I think this article is now as good as I can make it. I've self-nominated it as a featured article candidate. If you would like to support (or oppose) this status, please do so here. Thanks! -- cmhTC 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trans/cis links issue

The pages linked by "trans" and "cis" in the opening paragraph are terrible, and those pages reference back to this trans-fat page. The Chemisty section on this trans-fat page is an excellent explanation of both "trans" and "cis". I'm not really sure how to go about fixing this.. maybe move the chemistry section out to a newly combined trans/cis page, or maybe just have "trans" and "cis" link down to the Chimistry section in the opening paragraph. Jeffhoy 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it's not an excellent explanation, because of the 90° angles used everywhere. The geometry of saturated carbon (SP3) and unsaturated carbon double bonds (SP2) are very different (tetrahedral vs. flat), which is not reflected by the graph - one could call the drawings plain wrong, for that reason. The same is true for the trans article, but it is correct in the cis article. And don't call me pedantic - someone is trying to explain geometries (i.e. cis and trans) and is getting the (overall) geometry wrong! 199.74.98.43 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] taking a break

I'm taking a bit of a break from editing. A lot of work was done in the last few months leading up to the FAC posting. Now, I'm feeling tired and need to recharge. Just letting you all know that I'm not watching things closely at the moment. -- cmhTC 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the vandals and spammers at bay. Nunquam Dormio 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steen Stender

I removed the following sentence that I originally added:

According to Steen Stender of Gentoffe University Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark has seen a 20% drop in deaths from heart disease since the country's 2003 ban.[1]

as a clarification came through later:

"We quoted Steen Stender as saying that Denmark has seen a 20 per cent fall in deaths from heart disease since the 2003 ban on trans-fats (6 January, p 13). He clarifies that there was a 20 per cent fall between 2000 and 2005."[2]
  1. ^ McKenna, Phil. "Insight: Out of the trans-fat frying pan, into the fire", New Scientist #2585, 2007-01-06, pp. 13. Retrieved on 2007-01-09.  (full online article is subscription only)
  2. ^ For the record

Nunquam Dormio 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this true?

Is it true that if you eat trans fat, you can't get rid of it by working out like regular fat, and the only way to get rid of it is lyposuction? 71.194.136.20 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Frankg 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The human body doesn't make fat out of the fat you eat. Fat and weight gain are caused by how many refined sugars (carbohydrates)you eat. Any fat you have is your body's fat which your body made by refined sugars stimulating it to release insulin, it is not trans-fat, so you can still get rid of it. They human body doesn't work so literally as to store the fat in your food as human body fat, remember there is this thing called 'digestion' during which fats, carbs, and protiens are broken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.6 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cis redirection

Cis fats are NOT trans fats. They are very different. If this isn't fixed, I will not allow my college classes to use Wikipedia as a source.

Where is it that you see an error? Frankg 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankg: He means this: Cis fat (redirects to Trans fat at the moment 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Unknown Person, who has not signed: You should not allow "your college classes" to use Wikipedia as a source anyways - Wikipedia pages are not citeable. If they contain references to proper articles, nobody can be prevented to use and cite those as a source, though :) Just my 2 cents - anyways, it's just a redicrection - so your college classes never actually read their sources?!?!?! 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two 'trans fat' articles

There are two different articles titled 'Trans fat' (trans-fat and trans fat)--200.125.12.130 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. They are not different articles, the first redirects to the second. 83.67.217.254 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogenated fat

I just added them to the intro. Please create redirects, I was very surprised not to be able to search for them. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...trans fats are a component of hydrogenated fats, but they are not quite the same thing. Not sure how to rectify this. Frankg 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do need an entry for "hydrogenated fat". Maybe nutritionists confuse the two, but chemists are a bit more specific? On food packages I definitely see both "hydrogenated fats" and "trans-fats". Cheers. 205.228.73.12 11:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the term hydrogenated fats to the article on hydrogenation, which seems more appropriate - hydrogenated oil already redirects there. Thanks for bringing this up! Frankg 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. My reading of this

"Health concerns associated with the hydrogenation of unsaturated fats to produce saturated fats and trans fats is an important aspect of current consumer awareness."

is therefore: hydrogenated fats are a generic term that may refer to either saturated or trans fats, but there are some trans fats and saturated fats that are not hydrogenated fats. So in terms of set theory, hydrogenated fat is the union of two subsets of trans fats and saturated fats. Is that right? Would a Venn diagram be inappropriate? 83.67.217.254 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, although really, the additional trans and saturated fats are a result of the hydrogenation process. In other words, say we start with a hypothetical fat that is 1/3rd polyunsatured, 1/3rd monounsatured, and 1/3rd saturated. The fat undergoes the hydrogentation process, but only partially (full hydrogenation results in 100% saturated fat molecules). So, afterwards many of the polyunsaturates have become monounsaturated, some have become trans, and fewer have become saturated. Many of the monounsaturates have become trans, and some of them have become saturated. The saturated fraction remains the same. The new, hydrogenated fat, might be 1/8th polyunsaturated, 1/4th monounsaturated (some of which were unchanged, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), 1/4th trans (most of which used to be monounsaturated, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), and 1/2 saturated (some of which used to be monounsaturated, and a smaller amount used to be polyunsaturated). Frankg 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need the italics?

The title says it all. Do we really need to have the word trans italicized throughout the article? I realize it's a Latin prefix, but it's also a word that, at least in my circles, has entered the general vocabulary. Most importantly, though, I found that the italics were a major visual distraction for me while reading the article. David Norris 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hydrogenated" vs. "partially hydrogenated"

If an ingredient of a commercial food is labeled as "hydrogenated fat" (or "hydrogenated oil"), what does that mean exactly? What fraction of the fatty acids is still allowed to be unsaturated, and at what fraction of unsaturated fatty acids are the manufacturers required to call it "partially hydrogenated"? Icek 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the US, if it says "hydrogenated," then the oil was fully hydrogenated - i.e., all the fatty acids have been converted to saturates. If it says "partially hydrogenated," then the hydrogenation process was stopped part-way through, which is when trans-fats have been formed. If the process were seen all the way through, then the trans fats would have turned to saturates. Frankg 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the theory, but when I look into the USDA food database at "Oil, industrial, palm kernel (hydrogenated), filling fat" it still has got 5.705% monounsaturated fatty acids, including 4.658% trans fatty acids. With "Oil, soybean, salad or cooking, (hydrogenated)" it's more extreme: only 14.9% of the fat is saturated fatty acids. Icek 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are partially hydrogenated, and mislabeled - the distinction between "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated" is a legal one, set by the FDA's regulations. Frankg 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but as a chemical reaction is usually not totally efficient, there will be some unsaturated fatty acids left in any real hydrogenated fat. There should be a limit on how much unsaturated fatty acids makes a fat "partially hydrogenated". Icek 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, here is the regulation (look under (a)(14)). Frankg 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and BTW, I asked the same question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (see here). Unfortunately the regulation doesn't really define "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated". Icek 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Many folks use "hydrogenated" as short-hand for "partially hydrogenated," the USDA included. Remember that the USDA is a very separate entity from the FDA, which has strict rules about it as far as food labels go. As far as the chemical process, there's a point at which the oil in the hydrogenation chamber just stops reacting to hydrogen - at that point, it's fully hydrogenated. Frankg 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you detect the stopping of the reaction, and how at which pressures, temperatures etc. - these details determine how much unsaturated fatty acids will be left. Icek 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean "If a fat molecule becomes completely hydrogenated, it is no longer a trans fat or any other kind of unsaturated fat molecule -- it becomes a saturated fat molecule." ? If se, please explicitly state this in the article. --75.19.73.101 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty close. If it was literally completely hydrogenated it would also drive off the oxygen, so it would become an alkane. But in normal parlance, a saturated fatty acid is one in which all the carbon bonds are fully saturated by individual hydrogen atoms except for the single COOH group at one end that defines it as a fatty acid (vice CH3 for alkanes or COH for alcohols).LeadSongDog 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal bias

This article is written from a liberal slant. Trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat, and it is being portrayed here as an absolute evil. Although it has no benefits, neither do many other things that people choose to do. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the current landscape of the research in this field, you may have a difficult time proving the assertion that "trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat." Frankg 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I wonder how this is a "liberal slant." Yes, many self-professed conservatives doubt the popular image of trans fats, others are concerned about lawsuits involving trans fats, and even more express unease about any bans on foodstuffs that consumers choose to use — such bans being contrary to free-market principles — but most people would not view the actual science and studies about trans fats as being "liberal." Calbaer 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
...How does an article on nutrition have a liberal slant? You might as well claim that the Vitamin C article subtly promotes Bolshevism. Strad 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the Vitamin C article does mention Linus Pauling ;\) LeadSongDog 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Don't conservatives have anything else to do after 2006? Scientific research says the stuff is lethal. Politics comes into play how? Blaze33541 (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction section

I looked up this article to check what Trans Fats were and neither the overview section nor the article itself was that helpful. The article appears to be rather academic, which is of course one way of structuring it. But I suspect that many people including myself are looking more for something like this -

Fats in foods are made up of 4 different types of fatty acids - polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated and trans. Trans fats are found naturally in some animal-based foods, but are also formed when liquid oils are made into semi-solid fats like shortening and hard margarine.

The above is taken from Health Canada website. Any thoughts on making the Introduction a bit more consumer-friendly ? Alex Pankratov 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should be made a bit more reader-friendly, but I'm not happy with the Health Canada definition. Polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated are all terms dealing with how many double bonds are in the fatty acids, but trans has to do with, well, trans and cis isomerism. I don't know if there's really an easier way to introduce it. Maybe something like:
A trans fat is a fat which contains at least one unsaturated trans-fatty acid — that is, the fatty acid has at least one carbon–carbon double bond, and the long carbon/hydrogen chains on either side of the double bond are situated diagonally from each other. A particular class of trans fat occurs, in small quantities...
But that doesn't properly capture trans-isomerism, and I have a feeling it would still be confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the concept. Strad 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'm sure CH's definition is dumbed down, but that's exactly IMO what's missing from the introduction. What might work is the "in other words" approach. Start with a formal/academic definition (i.e. keep what's there already) and then give a one sentence layman summary similar to CH's 2nd sentence .. for people like myself :) See, for example, how it's done in Hamachi (which is a computer software, but there is a clear similarity). Alex Pankratov 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Health canada's mono/poly/sat/trans is just wrong. It was widely criticized as I recall when it came out. Trans fats are unsaturated. Non-trans unsaturateds are good for you, trans ones are bad. Saturated fats are in the middle. You can have mono- and poly- unsaturated trans fatty acids. This article is on trans fats themselves, an overall picture probably belongs in Fat IMO. -- cmhTC 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If 'dumbed down' was sought, we would simply say Fats which are solid at body temperature are dangerous. Stick with oils if you care about your health. But we're not really seeking 'dumbed down', are we? LeadSongDog 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the intro has to be more user friendly. Articles on Wikipedia should start out more like encylopedia entries then the father down you read they should get more in depth and scientific. When I found the trans fat article I just wanted to know if hydogenated oils were the same as trans fats. Before you get into the whole carbon-carbon double and diagonal molecules you should state simply what trans fats are. Perhaps 'a man-made' fat that is formed by hydogenating oil to produce such products as margarine and bases for cosmetics, it's one of the four fatty acids etc...' And maybe why it's named 'trans' fat which I would guess denotes it has been transformed from liquid to solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.6 (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history

the history section leaves out a few things. hydrogenated vegetable oil was originally used to fatten swine. it fattened them all right, then gave them tumors. faced with a surplus stock that they could no longer sell to farmers, crisco called it a food product and gave away cookbooks to encourage human consumption. Bruce Fife, N.D. wrote "saturated fat may save your life" a really good book full of research about fat. it's probably worth a look when writing about the differences and problems with unsaturated fats. 76.217.125.14 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fife's work meets our standards here. Not even close actually. --Ronz 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inventor

The bio on the inventor Wilhelm_Normann is much more extensive in German than English. It includes patent references that could illuminate much of the content in this article. I've requested a translation.LeadSongDog 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The translation is up.LeadSongDog 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to presence in food category

I wanted to mention why I undid a few recent changes to the article.

I restored the original order to the "presence in food" section for two reasons. First, I felt that the one sentence statement that 'partially hydrogenated ingredients = trans fat' was a bit misleading. It implied to me that only foods with PH oils had trans fats, which is not true. Second, I found it too abrupt a transition to jump straight from this statement to details about baking. I wanted to know more about trans fats (the topic of the article) before jumping to its uses. I think the changed ordering is good in the article introduction, though, just not in the details section.

Also, I have removed the list of foods containing trans fats. An absolute list like this is not going to work, as many of these foods can be (and were for years) prepared without trans fats. Many snack foods have no trans fat in many parts of the world. In Denmark, none of these foods contain significant levels of trans fats. I eat trans-free oven fries all the time. Non-hydrogenated frying shortenings are available, etc.

I encourage all editors to continue improving the article. -- cmhTC 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Crosfield & Sons

A recent edit to the article in the "response" section says that "Joseph Crosfield & Sons" was the original producer of trans fat.

  • First, the article currently states that Crisco was the first commercial hydrogenated fat, so we likely need a good citation to back up the Crosfield thing, if it is true.
  • Second, trans fats are a byproduct of a chemical hydrogenation process intended to change the properties of fats... they are not something people set out to make. Crosfield therefore didn't set out to create trans fats, but rather to hydrogenate some oil or something... can we change the wording? -- cmhTC 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
In Wilhelm Normann's recently translated bio, their's a link to (iirc) a german language site at dgfett.de (or some similar). There it explains how the first production use of his process was at Crosfield & Sons. Crosfield was bought out by Lever Bros, later Unilever. It should be possible to verify the dates. The German and UK patents are also on record, but I gather he failed to secure a US patent, much to his later sorrow. Nobody asserted that they set out to make trans-fats, but that is the subject of the article.LeadSongDog 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
User:68.40.205.114 has twice deleted a para re the use of whale oil. I've reverted. See above for where it came from, or use an online translator (e.g. google or babelfish) to get a rough idea. The cited source clearly discusses why they used the name "Talgol" for whale fat. Also, by 1903 the availability of kerosene for lighting had brought the price of whale oil way down. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article meets the current Good article criteria, and has been listed. Other than a couple of minor grammatical fixes that were just easier to fix as I was reading it, the article is well written with good and engaging prose, and well referenced (the one 'citation needed' tag that I came across for the McDs info was easy enough to find a reference for, so I just added it). The only real semi-major change that I made was promoting the 'history' and 'chemistry' sections, since this contains some good, basic information to start the article off with, and contributes to a better introduction.

One area of improvement could be including more specific information on the exact biochemical mechanisms by which trans fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease. This is briefly stated in the article, but not much is really said here. But other than that, this article is great! Good work! Dr. Cash 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a cite of the 2003 Gatto study on the connection to apolipoprotein(a) and cholesteryl ester transfer. It's a start.LeadSongDog 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment on this. As a tertiary source we need to put these kinds of facts in context. The material added could be improved by explaining how it connects to the cholesterol test described. It's over my head so I can't do it, but an average reader of this article will likely not be able to make use of this information as it stands. Can it be better integrated? -- cmhTC 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly contradicting facts in article

I'm no expert in the area, so I'm leaving the edits to others.

The History section defines the US FDA definition of zero grams trans fats per serving as less than one gram per tablespoon. Whereas the Public Response and Regulation/United States section says trans fat levels of less than a half gram per serving may be labeled as zero grams per serving.

I checked crisco.com's website to verify the serving size of Crisco shortening as 1 tablespoon, so these definitions are not equivalent. 68.88.202.65 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2003 FDA paper (at ref 60) is pretty arcane language, probably written for lawyers. As best I can read it, they couldn't decide what was reasonably achievable for a recommended daily value for non-vegans, so they chose to defer defining "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat".LeadSongDog 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about a definition for "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat", but the definition of "Zero grams of trans fat" which is defined and used on product labels now, and this article professes to define in two places with different meanings. The reference you mention, upon my skimming, only mentions that the FDA proposed to amend regulations to state that trans fat has to be reported on a nutrition label when the value is 0.5g or greater of trans fat per serving. 68.88.202.65 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural Trans Fat vs ManMade Trans Fat and a Wendy's Chili question

I'm interested to know if man made trans fat(like partially hydrogenated oil) is worse for your health than natural trans fat like that found in beef.

What brought me here was finding out that burgers have trans fat(was looking up Wendy's nutritional info). I try not to eat trans fat...but eliminating burgers from my diet(currently only 1 a week if that...) completely would be a downer.

Also, a large chili at Wendy's has 0.5g of trans fat...where would that be coming from? The little bit of beef in it?
Wendy's Nutrition

Thanks in advance Deathwish238 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Either that or the "soybean oil" is partially hydrogenated. Given that ground beef is the first (and so presumably the most plentiful) ingredient listed in the chili, I'd infer that it's the beef that's the source. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the rounding practice they're evidently using. Compare the TFA in large vs small chili: A 50% larger portion shows "0.5g" vs "0g" of TFA. This means that none of their "0g" numbers can really be trusted to mean anything but "less than 0.5g". It's plain old deceptive practice, even if the FDA says it's acceptable.LeadSongDog 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I realize that if the large chili has some trans fat that the small chili must have some as well. I think it'ld be annoying to have to list the exact amount when less than 0.5g, but they could just list it as <0.5g. Do you have any insight on the first part of my question? Thanks for the reply btw ---- Deathwish238 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to know what in the chili or burger has the transfat, unless the site (like Yum Corporation's nutritional site) breaks down the ingredients' nutritional info individually. Even a seemingly benign ingredient may have the transfat--beef, in general, has very small amounts of it.

In a lot of cases, like Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches--the only ingredients are beef and bread. Where does the significant amount of trans fat come from? Most likely from a spray they use on it to "enhance the flavor"--not the beef's natural trans fat. Sailoralea (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Natural trans fat is not included in the definition of trans fat for nutritional labels.. so it shouldn't be the beef, unless the companies are being conservative (quite unlikely) [[1]]


There are some instances where Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is used in small amounts in products claiming to be "Trans Free" if you will with a footnote that the oil "adds a trivial amount of Trans Fat," though this too can be deceptive, such as in the case of cooking oil sprays where it is listed as such per serving, but if one were to measure a single serving size vs the amount of said products, you will realize that it's not really that "trivial" and I do agree that there should be a <.5g measurement on Nutritional Value panels so as to not mislead Trans fat-conscious consumers. - Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Percent of food energy

There are several places in the article that discuss trans fat intake as a % of total food energy. Is there anyone who could translate that to an absolute mass of trans fat for an average diet? ".. recommending in 2003 that trans fats be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake" and "Replacing 2% of food energy from trans fat with non-trans unsaturated fats" is meaningless to me. Looking at the food energy article, it appears that 1% of food energy for an average male is 25 kcal, or just under 3g for fats (using 9 kcal/g), but I'm not sure this is the right approach.

Start with a better estimate of basic caloric budget. The US guideline depends on age, sex, height, activity level, etc. The 1% of 2500 kcal you used might be reasonable for a moderately active male of 18-25 years age, but almost anyone else should be lower. Thus limiting TFAs to (2500 * 1% / 9) will be rather high for most people, but there's little or no harm in adopting a lower threshold.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone/Writing Style of the Article

I don't know if it's the result of vandalism or neglect, but the overall writing style of this article is inconsistent and lackluster. It lacks flow--it's like a series of factual statements rather than an informative article. I'm trying to revise it, but I can only do so much. Sailoralea (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section ordering

I see the History and Chemistry sections have been moved above the presence in food and nutritional guidelines sections. I'm not going to undo this because, as the person who did the big reorg that put the food and nutrition stuff first, it's natural that I prefer things my way. I think it might be worth considering whether the article reads well right now. I don't mind the history section up front, but I think the Chemistry stuff is better back down below the presence in food and dietary guidelines sections. I believe most readers would prefer them that way (and indeed some anonymous reader has commented to that general effect above).-- cmhTC 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline tenses

In the final section of #Food industry response and more specifically, the #Major users' response area refers to past events in the future tense, indicative of old statements left unnoticed and, for the most part, need to be revised into the past tense and updates on the statuses/results of these undertakings. It definitely would be worthwhile to know what the general outcome was of all these switchovers from Trans Fats to a lack thereof.

Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible correction to health risks

Under the "Health Risks" section, there is mention that human lipase "can hydrolize the cis double bond, resulting in two lower molecular weight fatty acids that can be further metabolized". Lipases (EC# 3.1.1.3) hydrolyze ester bonds, which connect fatty acids to glycerol in fat molecules (among other cameo roles in various organic compounds). There are hydrolases that act on carbon-carbon bonds (EC# 3.7.?), but I think these typically act on ketone substrates. Was was the "human lipase" reference intended to be to a different type of enzyme, perhaps an oxido/reductase (EC #1.?.?.?)? Strider yellow (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] UK food labelling

It seems to me that the expression - Hydrogenated vegetable oil - has been dropped from use in the UK and replaced with - Vegetable fat - for the same substance. Does anybody know if this is in fact true?--83.105.33.91 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Center for Science in the Public Interest

The History section of the article stated:

… however, advocates also said that the unsaturated trans fats of margarine were healthier than the saturated fats of butter.[1] According to Mary G. Enig, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) campaigned against the use of saturated fats for fast food cooking starting in 1984. When fast food companies replaced the saturated fat with partially hydrogenated unsaturated fats, CSPI's campaign against them ended. While CSPI defended trans fats in their 1987 Nutrition Action newsletter, by 1992 CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use.[2]
  1. ^ Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease. Retrieved on 2006-09-14.
  2. ^ Mary G. Enig, PhD. The Tragic Legacy of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Retrieved on 2006-05-02.

It seems unlikely to me that a US pressure group played such a crucial role in what was a worldwide switch to trans fat that it should appear in the History section. I have moved these three sentences to the United States section. If anyone has good evidence to that effect, feel free to move them back. Mary G. Enig is an expert on fats but the cited article has elements of a polemic, including insinuations that CSPI was in the pocket of the soybean industry, so it needs to be treated with some caution. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually CSPI was one of the big reasons the U.S. switched to trans. It started with Phil Sokolof and the "Poisoning of America" campaign, and then CSPI took up the standard. This New York Times article "EATING WELL; Prepared Foods Without 'Bad' Fats" [2] is pretty much the way I remember it. I don't believe CSPI was in cahoots with the soy industry as much as they were, if not anti-meat, pro-vegetarianism. And the line was blurred between saturated animal fats and saturated "tropical" fats. Since soybean was/is a domestic (U.S.) product and "tropical" oils an import, the world being what it is, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some politicking and/or shaping of public opinion behind the scenes by those with an interest in soybeans.
One other thing that might be considered is ND's reference to a worldwide switch to trans fats. I'm not a global expert, relatively U.S.-centric on this topic, but I was under the impression that most of the rest of the world relied much more heavily on palm oil, which is moderately high in saturates, to replace animal fats vs. replacing all saturates. That's one of the things the U.S. is now doing to eliminate trans. Perhaps someone more familiar with the situation could comment?
A side note: I'm not usually terribly impressed with Wiki articles, but for the most part, this one is pretty good. I may come back and suggest a few small edits, but they are relatively minor. Hats off to cmh.Sigh NNNs (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] benefits of trans vaccenic acid

A University of Alberta study suggests that VA feeding in rats resulted in lowered total cholesterol, lowered LDL cholesterol and lower triglyceride. The study was 16 weeks long. Should this information be incorporated? Shawnc (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the straight dope

Does anyone else think it's funny we have a link to the straight dope site, which looks like a paraphrase of this article? -- cmhTC 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, yes, encyclopedic, no. I've rv'd this edit as wp:spam. Thanks. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)