I mused on this back in the day: [consumerist.com]

It seems like it is difficult to replace one troublesome ingredient without eventually finding problems with the alternative.

I've always found this whole trans-fat affair suspicious. Until NYC's ban, the only times I'd seen the phrase "trans-fat free" was when products were boasting it. They were also free of all sorts of substances we'd never heard of or cared about before. To me trans-fats are a strawman, this is just the one they wanted to use for marketing. IANAS, but fat is fat: trans- or otherwise. I was already doubtful about the nutritional significance of removing trans-fat and thought it was a PR move for food suppliers and health Nazis. This kinda confirms my suspicions.

@Bay State Darren:
yes its all a big conspiracy, but now that youve alerted THEM that you know about it, youd better have a good place to hide, THEY are going to find you now!

So basically the article is saying that junk food is still bad for us? Good to know.

@Bay State Darren: You need to educate yourself before you start making accusations.

All fats are not created equal.

Yes. The most common substitute for trans fats is palm fat, which is a saturated fat and usually tastes like ass, to boot.

They're also spot on with the comment about people eating more 0-trans stuff because they think it's healthy. It's just like the low-fat craze of the 90's.