Talk:Trans fat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Effect on the Immune System

At some point someone added this phrase:

"early clinical research shows an important role of these naturally occuring trans fatty acids in the immune system"

I think this sounds completely false, as all research I have seen is that even 1 gram a day in very unhealthy. Is there even a single such study? It may be thoroughly influenced by funding by the TFA industry, but let's at least reference it. Perhaps "important" is meant in the sense of "dangerous. Perhaps someone was confused with some of the very healthy natural saturated fats. Carltonh 22:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed or referenced.
Perhaps it is a reference to vaccenic acid, which is a precursor to CLA. (Can be converted to CLA in humans, or by ruminants, then eaten as CLA.) EricE 02:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Of course it's a reference to CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) which is a naturally occuring trans fatty acid in ruminant (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) meat and milk, and now some people are making it out of vegetable oils.(I don't know what fatty acid vaccenic acid actually is from a chemical perspective, per the last comment, and whether it's a trans fatty acid).I'm also afraid the person making the original conmmentary is misinformed/doesn't understand chemistry and nutrition and the last three sentences should be deleted as it's rather biased. Try http://www.das.psu.edu/dcn/catnut/PDF/DAS0488CLA.pdf for some reasonable scientific discussion on the subject. I'd also guess the dairy and beef associations might have some links to studies that talk about the benefits of CLA. Also you can check any research associated with an ingredient called "Tonalin," one of the vegetable-oil-derived versions of CLA. LAK 20:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FDA Estimate

I don't believe the FDA estimate of lives saved quoted at the end of the article. If trans fatty acids (TFA) are truly the risk factor for high LDL and hence atherosclerosis instead of saturated fats in general, I would expect the number of early deaths to drop by orders of magnitude greater than the numbers cited.

But I'm sure the estimate has taken into account human behavior. How many people read labels? How many follow nutritionists' advice? To what extent will they cut back? Compliance will be far from complete. 168...

A possible article correction: there are margarines available that are free of TFA. They may not taste quite as good, but one gets used to the altered taste and the health benefits are worth it.

I heartily second the recommendation to avoid all foods made with hydrogenated vegetable oil.

PS - I have hypercholesterolemia, but have recently added unadulterated peanut butter ('Teddie' brand), which is extremely high in saturated fat but free of TFA, to my diet.

David 14:04 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about adding a link to a comprehensive table that shows how much trans fat is contained in common foods? I saw several tables on the web but none were comprehensive. -- Andrew

Name

This article should really reside at Trans fatty acid, as it's what is being discussed. I know our naming guidelines state the article should reside at the most common name, but why should we put the article at the technically incorrect name just because the FDA allows the food manufacturers to use fat because it's shorter than fatty acid in a lable? As a common (wrong) alternate use, trans fat should be the redirect. Gentgeen 10:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe that fat molecules are actually triglyceride molecules which are glycerine (a triol) esterified with three fatty acid molecules. In the case of trans-fats, it would make sense if the fatty acid parts of the triglycerides would contain trans-fatty acids. Thus, I propose that trans-fats and trans-fatty acids are two chemical different but related things. H Padleckas 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Gentgeen's comment is 100% correct. The correct term is trans fatty acid (the same also applies to saturated fats vs. saturated fatty acids). Trans fats (and saturated fats) are shorthand (lazy? uniformed?) ways to refer to them. The problem with HPadleckas' way of thinking is if we go down that road, then we might as well call canola oil, soybean oil etc. a "saturated fat" because they contain about 10% saturated fatty acids vs. the fats that traditionally go by the name "saturated fat": lard, beef tallow, palm (all about 50-60% saturated fatty acids) and palm kernel and coconut (both in the 90% range if I remember correctly.)LAK 20:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Of hardness, candy bars, and labelling

I highly doubt this statement:

If the hydrogenation process were allowed to go to completion, there would be no trans fatty acids left, but the resulting material would be too solid for practical use.

The most common trans fatty acid in hydrogenated oils is elaidic acid (18:1-9). (Source: Enig, Know your Fats) If it were fully hydrogenated, it would be stearic acid, a very useful food fatty acid.

I'd like to see this referenced or slightly altered:

For example, a typical candy bar might have a shelf life of 30 days without use of hydrogenated oils, while the same product with hydrogenated oils can last up to 18 months.

That sounds like just a guess and is dependent on so many things. Candy bars in particular could use saturated fatty acids, which are not especially subject to rancidity.

In the labelling section It should be noted that trans fat amounts less than 0.5 g/serving can be listed as zero. This creates an effective loophole. A manufacturer may specify a small serving size such as 1 cookie. If that 1 cookie has 0.4 g of fat, though listed as 0, and you have 5 cookies, you've consumed 2 g trans fat, which is significant.

On the other side of the confusion, the mere presence of partially hydrogenated oil on a label does not mean there are any trans fats, or there may be truly negligible amounts. A good example of that is commercial peanut butter. Any peanut butter which doesn't say "natural" will have some partially hydrogenated oils added to it. However, the amount of trans fat is negligible. See: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2001/010612.htm .

EricE 03:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all:

Only PARTIALLY hydrogenated oils (fats, triglycerides, or if we are sticking to the scientific terms, triacylglycerols) will have trans fatty acids (and the amount varies based on the degree of hydrogenation). If a fat is fully hydrogenated, at least in theory, that means all the double bonds are gone so you can't have a trans (or cis for that matter) configuration because those rely on the hydrogens' position relative to the double bond.

Second:

A fat comprised entirely of stearic acid WOULD be "too solid" for practical purposes, like making Oreo filling or Crisco. Stearates ARE useful but only as an "ingredient" (if you will) to make other fats--which is how a lot of the fats end up being "trans free" or "lower in trans"

Third:

The candy bar example is vague tho I'd take it to mean that that's the difference perhaps between a regular soy oil and one that's hydrogenated. But a candy bar is a pretty bad example to use.

Fourth:

Unless they've changed recently, peanut butter stabilizers are fully hydrogenated,hence, no trans.LAK 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Illogical writing

However any hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oil will contain trace amounts of the metals used in the process of hydrogenation.

This line has no relevance to the paragraph it's in.

If the hydrogenation process were allowed to go to completion, there would be no trans fatty acids left, but the resulting material would be too solid for practical use. A claimed exception to this is Kraft Foods' new trans fat free Crisco which contains the wax-like fully hydrogenated cottonseed oil blended with liquid vegetable oils to yield a shortening much like the previous Crisco which was made from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. However any hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oil will contain trace amounts of the metals used in the process of hydrogenation. In a natural fatty acid, the hydrogen atoms usually form a double bond on the same side of the carbon chain. However, partial hydrogenation reconfigures most of the double bonds that do not become chemically saturated, so that the hydrogen atoms end up on different sides of the chain. This type of configuration is called trans (which means "across" in Latin). The structure of a trans unsaturated chemical bond is shown in the diagram.

I recommend deletion of the particular sentence. Also, the paragraph should probably be split up into two or more.

Maybe not completely "illogical writing"?

That phrase on metal residues is not really irrelevant to the case of trans-fats formation. Those who saw the real 10% nickel-fat blend, which is the waste of margarine production, would understand what I mean - the more complete is hydrogenation, the less trans-fats it produces, however if the fat becomes more solid the settling rate of spent catalyst particles in it delayes, so their concentrations in final product would increase. Marabod 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

What I plan to do:

1. "Labelling of trans fats" and "Legislation" sections appear linked. Need to reorganize this.

2. Remove external links besides those in "Sources" section. (Except when backing up a specific assertion) --RainR 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please rewrite this Canada section

What does this mean? A "similar ban" to what? There is no reference of a ban to which this could be similar. There is only reference in the preceding sentence to Canada taking a positive stand with food labelling.

  • In November 2004, an opposition day motion seeking a similar ban was introduced by Pat Martin of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and passed through the Canadian House of Commons by an overwhelming 193-73 vote.

Mrendo 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FDA Extensions and non-compliance

Added information on non-compliance with US labeling requirements. I work for a label printing company, mainly retail food labels. I've never personally seen a non-zero trans fat quantity on any food label. The FDA is granting extensions on weak pretenses it seems. I can't find a reference to just how widespread this is, but I did find that one reference to the FDA extension process that mentions extensions may be granted for up to 2 years. I included information I believe to be verifiable. More sources on this matter will likely become available in early 2006 if many labels remain non-compliant for long after the new year. Gigs 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FDA loopholes?

I've seen non-zero trans fat quantities. However, the big problem is that the FDA has allowed manufacturers to say there are zero grams of trans fat if the product contains <500mg/serving. So if there are 499mg/serving, the label says zero grams. You basically have to look at the ingredients because you can't trust the label. This is reprehensible, not least of all because many people eat more than one serving, and serving sizes are very small for some foods. I think this caveat should be highlighted in the article.

Furthermore, I've noticed foods that I KNOW had trans fat at one point (Dorito's corn chips, for example) now make no mention of "partially hydrogenated..." in the ingredients. Did Frito-Lay really change the recipe OR does some other egregious FDA loophole simply let them get away with calling it plain old "vegetable oil?" The chips taste exactly the same as before. I refuse to believe that they're magically using liquid oil now.

Globe199 19:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Believe what you want, but the recipe has been changed. It's something that's been in the works since 2002, and has been well-publicized for at least the last year or so. Do some googling. Stubblyhead 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Doritos still say partially hydrogentated in plain English in the ingredients. Yet their store displays proclaim "zero grams of trans fat." This is a complete LIE. Frito-Lay assumes (perhaps rightly) that consumers are too stupid to actually read the ingredient list. (I made a mistake in my earlier posting. Only on the small snack-size bags don't mention "partially hydrogenated" -- the larger bags say it.)
    • As long as I'm bitching about it, here's a question. I've noticed a lot of foods mention partially hydrogenated whatever in the ingredients, but then use an asterisk. At the bottom of the list it says "Adds a trivial amount of trans fat." Does anyone know what the FDA considers "trivial?" Because we all know how soft the FDA has been on these companies -- I don't doubt they'd allow maybe up to 50 or even 100mg before the "trivial" designator can't be used. Globe199 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


Gee--is there NO case to be made for--at least--limited consumption of these p.h. veg oils? The article risks sounding a little, er, health cranky as it stands . . . Not that I'd be the one to add this. I just think there should be (an attempted) defense of their use within the article, especially given these products' wide use. I actually think this would make the arguments against p.h. veg oils more effective. Nhrenton 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)N. Renton

There is a long history of widely-used food additives turning out to be a serious scourge upon public health. While I agree that the article could probably be cleaned up to some extent, the limited advantages of using partially hydrogenated oils are mentioned in the article, including food preservation and low cost of the oils. However, I think many experts would agree that the emphasis on negative effects is entirely appropriate given the physiological effects of trans fats. Frankg 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How much is considered too much?

This should be in the article, with varying points of view on how much would be too much. JONJONAUG 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no safe level of trans. Just like drinking turpentine, you shouldn't do it. -- cmh 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you base this on? Saying any is unsafe implies that, if someone at a cafe slipped a bit into my coffee instead of cream, I can now feel free to eat Oreos, since I'm already trans fat doomed. This seems unlikely. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an all or nothing argument. Drinking a bit of turpentine is clearly less bad than drinking a lot. It doesn't change the fact that a little bit is considered harmful. It's based on reading I've done in the past. I don't have a hard source handy, which is why it's a comment on a talk page rather than in the article. -- cmh 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would be nice if this were quantified, either in the talk page or, better, in the article. Hopefully someone with a hard source can do so. Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, even Ban Trans Fats states on their homepage that, "The AHA recommends that your daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories, which is equivalent to roughly 2 to 2.5 grams of trans fat per day." Clearly the AHA and Ban Trans Fats believe that there is a safe level. I guess I'll add that into the article when I address these other issues.... Calbaer 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that they think that there's a safe level, it just means that they think restricting intake to those amounts will be an improvement on current levels (7% was a figure I read today) and a guideline that people can follow. Any amount of trans fats is harmful, unlike other food components. For example, there is a "safe" level of methylmercury consumption, because our bodies can apparently chelate/dispose of a certain amount of mercury before it builds up and causes harm. Likewise, there are "safe" levels of sodium, saturated fat, and linoleic acid, because our bodies need those all to some extent, but too much is definitely harmful. Now, if the general harm caused by trans fats increases exponentially or logarithmically relative to intake, rather than linearly, I can see the case made for a minimum "safe" level that, for all intents and purposes, causes virtually no damage. However, I don't think the research has progressed to the point where that kind of thing can be quantified. Frankg 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So it would be accurate to say, "While there's no evidence that any amount of trans fat is harmless, advocacy groups and the AHA recommend daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories." Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it. Frankg 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can do better than what is proposed above. I've taken the time to track down a rock-solid source. The national academies of science are the scientific bodies that advise the government, and among other things, set the official "RDI"s that are used to determine food labels in Canada and the US. The summary from the most recent recommentations is here. The important facts are as follows (these are quotes, my added comments are italicized):

  • Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health.
  • Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. (that means no amount needed per day or recommended daily amount)
  • there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of CHD.
  • A UL is not set for trans fatty acids because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases CHD risk.
  • trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan diets (they naturally appear in dairy products, for instance)
  • Nevertheless, it is recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.

Here are some other facts from within the details of the chapter (quotes where indicated):

  • Human milk contains 1-5% trans fat [1].
  • "No studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of trans fatty acids that are present in meats and dairy products on LDL concentrations. The relative effect of trans fatty acids in meat and dairy products on LDL cholesterol concentration would be small compared to hydrogenated oils because of the lower levels that are present, and because any rise in concentration would most likely be due to the abundance of saturated fatty acids." [2]
  • Trans fats appear to increase the LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio. This "lead to the concern that dietary trans fatty acids are more deleterious with respect to CHD than saturated fatty acids." [3]

I'm going to incorporate some of these facts in the page now. -- cmh 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Saves me work and makes it better. I'll see it after you're done, I guess. Just be sure to put it in an accurate, NPOV way. "There is no safe level" is wrong (since one molecule would be safe). "There is no minimum recommended level due to the linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration" (or something like that) would be best. Calbaer 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to have an anti-US POV. However, I'm not sure of the veracity of some of the statements, so I'm not sure whether to merely restate the same things in non-POV fashion or eliminate them. For example:

  • "Outside the US, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings" is stated, but is this true? Is it true in the most populated countries, for example, such as Russia, China, and (if butter products like ghee don't limit trans fat sales) India? I know that I recently bought some Top Ramen made in India; some had trans fats, some (supposedly) didn't. The article on margarine seems to assume no country-by-country difference, so I'm not sure which article is more accurate. I suspect that it may be truer to say, "In Western Europe and Canada, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings."
  • "These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health. Rather than preventing the sale of trans fats, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels." Do advocacy groups promote a total ban? Is it a high cost for every consumer? This statement seems to assume that rational countries ban them, while the US does not. Does any country aside from brave little Denmark ban trans fats?

On an unrelated note, why is trans usually italicized in this article? This should either be explained or eliminated. Also, do any studies provide an indication of whether there's a link to cancer? I thought I recalled hearing that, so whether it's true or misinformation, something should be said about it. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Trans" is in italics because it's a scientific term. I've seen some studies investigating the influence of trans fats on colon cancer, but nothing beyond that. Frankg 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all scientific terms need to be italicized, however, I'll let the two of you sort this out. There has been a lot of work done on trans and cardiovascular health... I just don't have a lot of the data handy just now. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if it remains italicized either way, I was just explaining why it was in the first place. We should probably follow any applicable Wikipedia policy. And yeah, I get the impression most of the research has been done in the area of the effects of trans fats on arterial plaque, erroneous incorporation into cell membranes (also a cardiovascular factor), and inhibition of certain enzymes (also affecting both heart health, and inflammation). Broader research will probably come to light in the coming years. Frankg 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Style#Italics has no indication that scientific words should be italicized and says to use italics sparingly. If cmh doesn't eliminate them, I will. Calbaer 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The reports I saw all used trans in italics. However, the media doesn't and I don't think common usage does. I suggest we use it in the formal trans fatty acids in the first sentence, but then say most people just call it Trans Fat and leave it unitalicized after that. -- cmh 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something to your concerns. I tagged the first quote for needing a citation a few weeks ago because of a similar concern. I suspect that this kind of statement should be removed if it can't be substantiated. Remember that we cannot use Wikipedia as a source, but need an external citation for things that are not obvious. As for the second point, the quotation also seems to promote a POV. However, we cannot overlook that the most science-based POV on trans fats is the one that promotes the elimination of artificially generated trans. We should do as WP:NPOV recommends and cite all POVs and let the reader decide, but this must be balanced, IMO, by the most reliable and prevalent POV which argues for their virtual elimination. I agree that trans should not be italicized throughout. If you think you can improve the article, I say make a stab at it, and let's add balance, but let's not turn it into a fluff piece for trans fat industry. -- cmh 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Science may say that trans fat is harmful, but that is different from saying trans fat should be banned. Clearly no one would write, "Benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health. Rather than closing down every McDonald's in the US, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the US requires the company to publish its nutritional information." I've never given McDonald's a dime to feed myself and I avoid trans fats like the plague (even urging others to avoid nondairy creamer), but the attitude that the US government should ban every harmful thing is clearly POV. Perhaps it would be better to write, "FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels. Due to the harm to human health, however, some consumer advocacy groups seek a ban of trans fats [citation needed]." But if I were to change the article around, I'd probably add one or two more [citation needed]s, and I don't want to make the article uglier than need be just because I don't know certain things in the article.... Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Statements that are POV should NOT be removed from the article. As per WP:NPOV they should be attributed, and the balanced opposing view presented as well. We present ALL points of view, not NO points of view. If there is a movement to ban trans fats we should write about it. Also, we should cover industry points of view. Ultimately, the perfect trans article should contain all the points of view, each in proportion to its acceptance or prominence. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course POV statements need to be balanced. But needlessly POV statements should be removed. Statements like, "These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health," are needlessly POV. It's already said that these are benefits for food manufactures. It's already said that trans fats come at a high cost to human health. Phrasing it the way it is now pretty much says, "Bad FDA! Bad food companies! Very bad!" while adding nothing of substance. Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article revision

I have revised the article. The new revision has several goals. Move discussion of the goodness of trans largely out of the section describing its uses. Add a nutritional guidelines section and rearrange the article to put technical and historical details after practical reference uses. I have tried to couch the recommendations on dietary consumption in terms of the statements of the NAS rather than as general prohibitions without citation. Note that the NAS does not believe there is a safe level (technically stated as there being no "tolerable upper limit"), however I have attributed this statement to them and put the WHO guideline there. The AHF could be added there too if we feel that more is better, but it is us-centric so I am tempted not to.

Others please feel free to continue to edit and improve the article and clean up any mess I've left. -- cmh 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this! The article is looking good; it's definitely much better organized now. A few comments:
  • I think it was unsaturated (cis) fats that go rancid, not saturated ones. I don't think trans fats are any more stable than saturated fats.
  • I'm not a vegan, but the article currently seems to imply that vegan diets cause "undesirable side effects and nutritional imbalances." I think this is definitely not unversally true. Certainly some vegan diets are imbalanced for some people, but for others a type of vegan diet may be optimal. Either way, this is the kind of debate the article should be re-worded to not spark if possible.
  • I think human milk contains trans fats because of trans fat intake, not because it is produced by humans naturally (which the current text might imply).
I'd be happy to make updates accordingly, but I figured I'd run these by you first if you had an opinion. I also might be wrong about some of this and so it's worth the discussion. Frankg 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Frankg. Go ahead and edit! I won't be offended. I'm not sure about the first point, I thought it was meat fats, but in any case it likely can be edited to improve. Re: vegan, go ahead yes, the wording was the NAS' but I think it can be softened. Re: breast milk, no actually all animal fats contain trans naturally. Just like cow's milk, all mammal milk contains some trans, including Human milk. -- cmh 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retraction: Just went to track the info down. You are correct about human milk. Found the original research and I'll modify the article accordingly. -- cmh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences between plant- and animal-based trans

Frankg, I just saw that you added the content 'do not appear to exhibit the same negative effects' wrt. plant and animal based fats. You cited a dairy board submission to the FDA in support. This is poor optics I think, because the dairy board has a vested interest here.

I have not dug hard, but the NAS made the comment "No studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of trans fatty acids that are present in meats and dairy products on LDL concentrations. The relative effect of trans fatty acids in meat and dairy products on LDL cholesterol concentration would be small compared to hydrogenated oils because of the lower levels that are present, and because any rise in concentration would most likely be due to the abundance of saturated fatty acids." [4].

We need some rock-solid evidence to make the claim that animal based trans are better (even though I suspect this to be the case myself). At the least, the comment should be changed to say that the Dairy Board has asserted that trans fats are better. Perhaps I'll add this for the time being, but feel free to remove it should you find a better way. -- cmh 19:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is definitely well-taken. I agree that your change should stand for the time being until we find a source that's not likely to be biased. Ultimately, I think the point readers should take home is that avoiding the trans fats in hydrogenated oils should be a priority rather than those in animal fats. I'll do some research/editing later when I have the chance. This has been some great collaboration/editing, BTW! Frankg 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Agree re: editing! -- cmh 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When it became known that trans fats were bad

I have just removed the following recently added text (the italicized text in the following sentence -- my italics): "By 1992, when the health risks of trans fats became known, CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use."

Given the current CSPI court proceedings the italicized content is certainly highly relevant. The reference for the original sentence does not support the added text (indeed, I am sure the author would disagree). It isn't at all clear that CSPI's beginning to speak about trans fats was coincident with our understanding of the risks, and it isn't clear than 1992 is when the risks "became known". If this passage is to be replaced, the statement will require rigourous independent citation. Having said that, a discussion of when the risks did become known would be an asset to this article. -- cmh 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Name?

Why is this article not called by the correct name, which is first mentioned? --Admin of NewSitera

Good question, the answer is that wikipedia's naming conventions say:
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
As the name trans fat is what most people use, that is the name of the article here on Wikipedia. Note that both Trans fatty acid and Trans fatty acids redirect to this page, so those searching Wikipedia by those names will still find this page. You seem interested in Wikipedia, why not get involved? -- cmh 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality??? Edit war?? Who's Fluggo?

Hi folks, I added a few paragraphs at the beginning to frame the discussion of all that cool chemistry with a reminder of why there's labelling of trans fats in the first place. Disease and death, that's why.

Is that so non-neutral?

So along comes this anonymous "Fluggo" and reverts the paragraphs with a bogus accusation about lack of neutrality. No attempt to talk, just rockets flipped over the border. Nice guy, that "fluggo". I'd have sent mail, only "Fluggo" is in hiding.

If you think my bias in favor of life over death has infected the piece, OK, so lighten it up a little. The science is good. And check out those sources. Authoritative and on point. And that's only the beginning. Maybe I should have been a lawyer. (Joke)

Why do I keep thinking "Fluggo" was working at his day job when he reverted my editing? Nah, just paranoia.

C'mon, Fluggo, you have better science? Ready to prove trans fats and polycyclics ought be in breakfast cereals? Go for it, man, it sure worked for the tobacco lobby.

--Jrgetsin 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, dude, chill. The fact that you're so worked up over it actually lends credence to my edit. You've got an axe to grind. Now, you've gone back and added the stuff back with more citations. That's cool. I kept what part had citations last time. I've done that this time, but removed the loaded words. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine that has to sell copies. Just stick to what you can prove/cite, and you'll have no trouble from me. Fluggo 14:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you should probably read some of the discussion above. They seem to be talking about the same thing. Fluggo 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Known Health Risks section

I think lots of the information in this section is good. I think, though, that it needs to be better integrated into the article.

The new section covers similar territory to the "presence in food", "nutritional guidelines" and "nutritional biochemistry" sections. While it provides some new facts for all three sections it also duplicates information already in the article.

There has been a recent article cleanup to try to consolidate the information into these three sections, and the new information should be inserted appropriately into these sections and the duplication addressed. -- cmh 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the version of the article I'm looking at is this one. -- cmh 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Reading up a bit on these compounds I find no facts that they're created in hydrogenation. I'm not saying it isn't so, and I didn't dig much, but I don't see it right away. We need a rock solid citation to show that hydrogenation of vegetable oils creates this and that it winds up in food to make a case for including this on the "health" sections of this page. I moved the article content here and it can be reworked/recreated if we need to. -- cmh 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Along with trans fats, hydrogenation also automatically evolves [[polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons]] (PAH's), made up of the same ingredients but more tangled up in form than trans fats. PAH's may pose a graver health risk than the trans fats. <ref>Baird WM, Hooven LA, Mahadevan B. Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and mechanism of action. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2005, 45(2-3):106-114. Google "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" for further references.</ref> What happens is that the biotransformation enzymes of the liver metabolize certain carcinogen precursors including polycyclics into active carcinogens, thereby increasing cancer risks.
In the US, the FDA labeling rule which went into effect on January 1, 2006 temporarily evaded the cancer issue by carefully defining trans fats solely and exclusively in terms of their molecular structure ''before'' ingestion. In contrast, the FDA demands that a drug and all its metabolic products must be demonstrated by chemical studies to be safe before clinical trials may even begin to determine if the drug is effective.

Edits by 192.80.211.11

I have reverted some of these changes. I reverted the addition of material to the presence in food because it duplicates information present in other parts of the article, and has a POV tone. I reverted the change to strengthen the claims of relatedness to other conditions, not because I think it is wrong, but because we need to improve that sentence by adding citations rather than just strengthening it. -- cmh 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

I'm in the middle of overhauling the health effects section. I'm pretty happy with the CHD section, and the rest is stuff from a long time ago that I'm sorting though later. -- cmhTC 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: new section: replacements. The TRANSforming appendix discusses the benefits of tropical oils over butter. -- cmhTC 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Advanced glycation endproduct

I have removed the following text from the article for now. The citation does not mention trans facts, and I don't (at first glance) see any reliable sources for a conflation of AGE effects and trans fat effects in the literature. It can be restored if needed, but I think we need a bombproof reference for this. -- cmhTC 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A confounding issue may arise from the cooking process itself, in that trans-fats are often associated with high temperature cooking processes which also favor the formation of [[Advanced glycation endproduct]] (AGEs) and oxidation products. It appears some of the studies have not controlled for these AGEs and oxidation products. It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." <ref>{{cite journal | author=T Koschinsky | title=Orally absorbed reactive glycation products (glycotoxins): an environmental risk factor in diabetic nephropathy | journal=PNAS (USA)| year=1997 | volume=94 | issue=12 | pages= 1699–1705 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed }}</ref> The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGEs.

Pressence in Foods

In the Preccense in Foods section, there are the following paragraphs:

"Benefits of hydrogenating plant-based fats for food manufacturers include an increased product shelf life and decreased refrigeration requirement. Partial hydrogenation raises the melting point of fat, producing a semi-solid material, which is much more desirable than liquid oils for use in baking. Plant-based hydrogenated vegetable oils are much less expensive than the animal fats traditionally favored by bakers, such as butter or lard.

Because partial hydrogenation of plant oils can replace animal fats, the resulting products can be consumed (barring other ingredient and preparation violations) by adherents to Kashrut (kosher) and Halal, as well as by adherents to vegetarianism in Buddhism, ahimsa in Jainism and Hinduism, veganism, and other forms of vegetarianism."

These paragraphs are talking about uses, benifits, use among vegetarians and the melting point of fat. I really dont see the majority of this text belonging in this section, it should be cut up and put elsewhere. No I'm not going to do this myself, I dont know anything about the subject matter. Harley peters 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The text is there because it explains WHY people put trans fats in food. I think it has some value there. However, I will take that as feedback and see if it can be better integrated. I'm going to be away for 10 days or so, but will look at it when I get back if no one else has. -- cmhTC 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Saturated?

The article currently says that trans fat is a kind of saturated fat. Is this technically correct, given that a trans fat by definition has at least some hydrogen atoms missing, so that there can be a trans bond? Frankg 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, any double bond, cis or trans, means it's not saturated. I don't know if kjsuisei was deliberately vandalizing the article or is simply confused, but I have restored the original wording of the lead paragraph.InNuce 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Asimov

I removed this text from the page today:

(The penultimate section, "Fats in the Kitchen," of [[Isaac Asimov]]'s ''The World of Carbon'' [various publishers, 1958, 1962] suggests this may in fact be a reversion to a much older forumulation. Asimov also mentioned that the non-hydrogenated cottonseed oil is quite cheap, but unpalatable.)

I think there isn't quite enough context here for it to add to the article. If someone has the reference and can pull something useful out it could fit somewhere potentially. However, if asimov simply proposed that hydrogenated oils could be cut with liquid oils this might be more appropriate at Crisco than at Trans fat. -- cmhTC 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New York

As far as I know, New York is just asking restaurants to limit trans fats to .5g per item, maybe put this in there instead of saying they want to completely eliminate? Just an idea TheEasterBunny 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is supported by the references then go ahead. -- cmhTC 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics?

Some parts of this article italicize trans (because the word exists in Latin?) and others do not. The FDA seems to prefer italicizing trans, but sometimes does not. IHMO, "trans fat" is a bona fide English word, and italicizing part of it is jarring. Wiktionary doesn't italicize it, either. --VAcharon 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This was dealt with under the section titled POV above. The idea is to present the proper name trans fatty acids in the first sentence, then establish that the common way of writing it is unitalicized "Trans fat". The article then uses "Trans fat" as this is the most recognizable and common usage, per Wikipedia policy. -- cmhTC 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a search through the article and found that indeed not all the references were changed at the time. I removed the rest. The only italicized trans words are references to the chemical concept rather than the type of fat. I also removed "trans fatty acids" from the article after the first line, except for within quotes. -- cmhTC 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Separating corporate and government response

With more and more companies getting on the bandwagon, the US section is starting to be burdened with stuff that applies in other places. For example, the KFC thing is relevant to Canada and perhaps other KFC national chains too, yet it's buried in the US section. I think we need to separate the government regulation and public responses that are specific to countries from the corporate things that are clearly international. What say you? -- cmhTC 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can some one write which contain how much trans-fat in which cooking oils like vegetable oil/corn oil/canola oil/olive oil

There shouldn't be any unless the oil is hydrogenated or otherwise chemically altered. Frankg 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Myths about trans fats

Removed this content from the page tonight. Explanations for removal will be interspersed with "myths".

  • Humans can't metabolize trans fats. If this were true, then trans fats would be completely calorie-free instead of containing 9 Calories per gram of useful energy.
The problem with this myth is that it isn't clear it is a myth. All fats contain energy, and there is no reason why trans fats shouldn't. There is already a comment (albeit minor) in the article that says that trans fats contain calories. To include this we should have some sources to show this is a misunderstanding.
  • Trans fats are no different for your health than any other fat. Trans fats, like saturated fats, are essentially straight molecules. This means that they naturally pack very densely into dangerous plaques inside blood vessels. This characteristic has a significant and direct effect on heart disease. Cis-isomers of monounsaturated fats do not share this unhealthy characteristic.
This is incorrect as far as I know. Cholesterol forms plaques, and consumption of trans fat upregulates LDL cholesterol. I am not familiar with reliable sources that state that trans fats stack in the bloodstream. If there are some, please provide.
  • Evolutionarily speaking, the first time humans encountered trans fats was when vegetable shortening was invented. Trans fats do occur naturally, notably in cow's milk and beef, and so humans have encountered trans fats in their diets for untold millenia. Trans fats can also form in very small quantities in response to high cooking temperatures, or in the presence of acids such as vinegar, particularly if a metal (such as Nickel, which is common in dirt) is also present.
The question of natural sources of trans fat is already covered in the article. I do not believe trans fats can be synthesized at normal cooking temperatures at standard pressure. Ironclad sources would be required for this.
  • Synthetic trans fats are noticeably different from natural trans fats. A spoonful of a synthetic trans fat such as elaidic acid -- the trans isomer of oleic acid (the main constituent of olive oil) -- may contain trace amounts of the metals used to catalyze the process (such as Nickel or Platinum), but the the synthetic elaidic acid is itself chemically identical to naturally occuring elaidic acid. The primary difference is that a spoonful of partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening may contain very large amounts of trans fats, whereas a similar amount of all-natural lard or butter would contain a relatively low amount of trans fats. On the flip side, the butter contains twice as much saturated fat compared to the shortening.
I'm not sure where the myth is here. In any case, it misses the point which is that any unsaturated fat can theoretically be hydrogenated; if you start with different non-trans fats you'll get different non-trans isomers... not just elaidic acid. Natural trans fats are not made of soybean oil, so they are different. See reference in the main article text.
  • Trans fats build up in the body and cause nerve damage that reduces the IQ of the person eating them. Trans fats are metabolized by the human body and do not build up or interfere with nerve function. In fact, during the century that synthetic trans fats have been commercially available, human IQ has risen almost 20 points due to improved health and nutrition, particularly among the less affluent people who were more likely to choose partially hydrogenated fats as an economical alternative to butter. This presumably could not have happened if trans fats impaired nerve function.
Trans fats also do not clog sewage systems, shuttle launch equipment, or degrate the performance of Hi-Fi audio systems. This is the first I've heard of someone thinking they lower IQ by decreasing neural function. We'd need a reliable source that says this is a widespread belief.

Text was removed, and comments inserted by me. -- cmhTC 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)