Companies are racing to take out trans fats from their products. But what of the fats they’re replacing them with? [WSJ via Consumer World Blog]


Edit Your Comment

  1. girly says:

    I mused on this back in the day: []

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

  2. Bay State Darren says:

    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.

  3. Aladdyn says:

    @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.

  4. swalve says:

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

    All fats are not created equal.

  5. Dervish says:

    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.

  6. shanaynay says:

    @BayStateDarren: trans fat increases LDL (“bad cholesterol”). Monounsaturated fats increase HDL (“good cholesterol”). IANAS either, but…know what you’re talking about before you say something?