Trans fat and Partially hydrogenated oils

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Mr Clean - 22 Aug 2007 04:35 GMT

Hello, all.

Some of you may remember me. My name is David, and I posted here
back in the early part of 2005. I'm still trying to watch what I
eat, and I exercise regularly. When I posted here, I was dieting as
well as doing drugs, so the weight practically melted off! Now I'm
sober, and I'm finding difficulty staying below 200#. But I'm also
exercising more, and have run in two 5K races since April of this
year. I'm hoping to do another one in September if I can find some
extra money for the registration fee. Back in 2005, I was doing
ediets.com and complaining that I didn't know how to cook. Now I
cook at least 99% of all my meals - it's amazing what one can do
when one has recipe cards!

Here's my question: How can companies say that their food items do
not contain any Trans fat, when the ingredient label says that it
contains partially hydrogenated oils? Is it because the serving
size contains less than 0.5 grams? Or are only some of the oils
considered to be Trans fat when they're partially hydrogenated?

I try to avoid Trans fat as much as possible. I still eat french
fries occasionally, and donuts maybe once a year. Would it be a
good idea for me to avoid foods with partially hydrogenated oils
altogether? I also try to avoide high fructose corn syrup as much
as possible, except where ketchup is concerned. It would be
impractical for me to carry my bottle of organic ketchup with me
everywhere I go just in case I happen to eat something that would go
better with ketchup. I once returned a case of Gatorade to Costco
for no other reason than that it contained HFCS.

Thanks for listening, and if someone has an answer to my question, I
would be forever in your debt.

david

Signature

This is my new signature. :)

Reply to this Message

joanne - 22 Aug 2007 05:43 GMT

Here's an explanation of how they get around it thru the labeling:
http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html
Also see the side link of what not to eat and why.

And about those french fries, its not just the transfats(many are
switching to other oils)but its the acrylimides that are formed at
high temps that are quite worrisome - one more reason not toeat fries,
crisps or baked goods:
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/acrylamide
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chem/acrylamide_faqs/en/
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acryfaq.html

joanne

Reply to this Message

Mr Clean - 22 Aug 2007 06:46 GMT

> Here's an explanation of how they get around it thru the labeling:
> http://www.bantransfats.com/newlabeling.html
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chem/acrylamide_faqs/en/
> http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acryfaq.html

Joanne,

Thank you for the links. I didn't know about the acrylimides.

Are fries that you buy at the grocery store and cook in the oven
safe?

And that's what I figured about the Trans fat; less than 0.5g and
they don't include it on the label. That's really sneaky.

I started reading labels a couple years ago, whereas before, I
didn't at all.

I read recently that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with
*fully* hydrogenated oils. Seems like I read that on Wikipedia, but
of course, a quick search doesn't reveal anything to support that.
Guess I'll have to keep looking, and post it if/when I find it.

Thanks again for the information!

david

Reply to this Message

Kaz Kylheku - 22 Aug 2007 21:54 GMT

> And that's what I figured about the Trans fat; less than 0.5g and
> they don't include it on the label. That's really sneaky.

That is not true. The word ``hydrogenated'' appears in the list of
ingredients. That list is part of the label.

It's not included in the nutrition facts because it's not the purpose
of nutrition facts to list every ingredient.

The nutrition fact sheet is for getting an idea about what the
macronutrient breakdown is: carbs and fibre, protein, fats, sodium,
potassium, etc.

If you don't read the list of ingredients, not only won't you know
whether there trans fat present, but you also won't know about a whole
lot of other things. For instance, the nutrition facts sheet won't
tell you about artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners or
preservatives. You won't know whether most of the sodium came salt, or
whether it's, for instance, from MSG or sodium benzoate.

> I started reading labels a couple years ago, whereas before, I
> didn't at all.
>
> I read recently that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with
> *fully* hydrogenated oils.

In theory there isn't. However, it's unlikely that there is such a
thing as fully hydrogenated oil. Chemical reactions rarely produce a
pure yield of anything. To be on the safe side, you have to regard
``fully hydrogenated'' as meaning something almost fully but not quite
100% hydrogenated: that there is probably some small percentage of
unsaturated fats remaining, a chunk of which has flipped to the trans
configuration, and that the manufacturers didn't bother with the extra
expense of separating this fraction. Now maybe that doesn't matter so
much if you only use a little bit of the product. A small fraction of
a little bit isn't a whole lot. But on the other hand, there do not
exist any established safe upper limits on trans fat consumption.
Currently, no amount is considered safe.

As far as there not being ``anything wrong'' with fully hydrogenated
oil: it's nutritionally devoid saturated fat. Hydrogenation destroys
omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids, the ``good fats'', turning them into
lard. Which is not to say that that the refined, bleached, and
deodorized oil that was subject to hydrogenation was particularly
nutritious to begin with. It's better to consume only cold-pressed,
unrefined oils.

Reply to this Message

Mr Clean - 23 Aug 2007 06:30 GMT

>> And that's what I figured about the Trans fat; less than 0.5g and
>> they don't include it on the label. That's really sneaky.
>
> That is not true. The word ``hydrogenated'' appears in the list of
> ingredients. That list is part of the label.

Uh, please try to follow along. I was talking about the nutritional
label. Hence my reference to "0.5g", which is not included in the
ingredients list.

> It's not included in the nutrition facts because it's not the purpose
> of nutrition facts to list every ingredient.

Yet Trans fat is on the label, and says 0g. Which is patently false
if the ingredients list states that PHVO is included in the
manufacture of the product.

> The nutrition fact sheet is for getting an idea about what the
> macronutrient breakdown is: carbs and fibre, protein, fats, sodium,

^^^^

(Trans fat is a fat.)

> If you don't read the list of ingredients, not only won't you know
> whether there trans fat present, but you also won't know about a whole
> lot of other things.

It's obvious that I do read the ingredients list, hence my original
question. It's apparent to me that you didn't read my original
post, or you wouldn't be bringing this up.

<snip>

>> I started reading labels a couple years ago, whereas before, I
>> didn't at all.
>>
>> I read recently that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with
>> *fully* hydrogenated oils.

<snip>

> As far as there not being ``anything wrong'' with fully hydrogenated
> oil: it's nutritionally devoid saturated fat. Hydrogenation destroys
> omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids, the ``good fats'', turning them into
> lard.

So what you're saying is hydrogenating vegetable oils will turn them
into animal fat?

Main Entry: lard
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin lardum,
laridum; perhaps akin to Greek larinos fat
Date: 14th century

: a soft white solid or semisolid fat obtained by rendering fatty pork

<snip>

d

Reply to this Message