FDA

The Coming Trans Fat Ban and the Petty Tyranny of the FDA

The FDA, which helped make trans fat use more common, is now seeking to ban trans fats.

|

Don't get too attached to your movie-theater popcorn, folks: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to release a final ruling that "all but" bans trans fats any time now, reports Politico.

There may be some limited exceptions, and "naturally occurring" trans fats from meat or dairy products won't be targeted, but food companies are generally expecting that the FDA's rule will leave them little room to use trans fats in their products.

So if you like donuts, frozen pizza, coffee creamers, or canned cinnamon rolls—which taste surprisingly delicious when dropped into a deep fryer—get ready for a mouthful of disappointment. They're all products that currently rely on trans fats, and may have to change their recipes after the FDA ruling comes down. Without trans fats, they might taste different (donuts, for example, would be more oily in texture) or preserve less well. Either way, they won't be the food you love and are used to.

True, none of these may be your favorite foods, but they're surely someone else's. And for those folks, the FDA is making life a little less tasty—and revealing both how overbearing and how frivolous federal regulation can be.  

The FDA and its supporters argue that trans fat restrictions are necessary as a health measure following a 2013 proposal that trans fats not be "generally recognized as safe." This is more than a little bit ironic given that for decades, trans fats were pushed by the public health community as a healthier alternative to saturated fats. Indeed, the food industry shifted to trans fats through the 1980s and 1990s in part because of a requirement that food products with saturated fat be labeled—a requirement which, of course, was put in place by the FDA.

At least indirectly, then, FDA food regulations helped make the use of trans fats more common—yet now the agency is trying to ban the same fats its earlier work encouraged. Meanwhile, it increasingly seems clear that the old public health wisdom about the evils of saturated fats was off-base, and that the once-evil saturated fats aren't nearly as bad as previously thought. 

I'm not saying that the science is wrong now. Maybe—probably—the public health wisdom is right this time, or at least pretty close. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence suggesting that trans fats are particularly healthy for anyone, although the food industry says it's safe in small amounts. But the government's history of reversals and follies when it comes to dietary recommendations (the food pyramid, for example, was also wrong) should at least give one pause about the wisdom of a move as drastic as the one that appears to be coming down the line.

At a minimum, it ought to provide a reminder that there are always unintended consequences, even to what seem like modest regulatory measures. The same could obviously be true again. When the FDA began its quest to eliminate trans fats in 2013, the director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, who welcomed a trans fat ban, also warned in Time that, "There are other ways to manipulate fat, and we have to be careful we don't wind up with another bad invention." 

Another reason to question the FDA's far-reaching fight against trans fats: It's practically unnecessary at this point. Over the past decade or so, Americans have rapidly shed their affections for trans fat-laden foods: Between 2006 and 2013, following both an FDA labeling requirement and a steady increase in warnings from food researchers that trans fats might not be all that healthy, average daily consumption dropped from 4.6 grams to 1 gram, according to The New York Times. The FDA is declaring total war on an enemy that has largely been defeated. 

This too-much-too-late crusade against trans fats is the sort of overreach that reveals how strikingly petty the federal government can be. What the FDA is doing, essentially, is launching an all out regulatory strike against the grave threat of…recipes for donuts and frozen pizza, microwave popcorn and prepackaged cake frosting, all in an effort to stamp out an ingredient that has been used for decades, and is now in widespread decline. It is a demonstration of both relevance and irrelevance—an opportunity to witness the great and bothersome power of the federal government, and its irritating smallness as well.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on How Big Government Erodes the Constitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What article of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to ban trans fats? Other than the invisible FYTW clause.

    1. It’s the classified amendment to the Constitution that was passed as an addendum to the 21st.

      1. Constitutions only apply to free folk. The only constitution knee benders’ understand is the rule of man as dictated by their betters.

        (Sorry am six days into a Game of Thrones book 5 bender and am seeing everything through that lens now)

        1. Its alright, the north remembers.

    2. Interstate commerce clause. If you read the FFDCA, you’ll see its prohibitions nearly all apply explicitly only to goods in or being held for introduction to interstate commerce. For intrastate commerce, state pharmacy laws usually reflect the same provisions, or simply say you’re allowed to have the product in commerce within that state if it’d be legal interstate under the FFDCA.

      1. Power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” does not include banning things the government doesn’t like. Especially considering the meaning of the term “regulate” as it was understood at the time.

  2. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t already banned the *term* “trans fats”.

    1. No, trans is acceptable. Tranny is the offensive term.

      1. What about “trans fatties”?

        1. Micro-aggression x 2

      2. Even if I’m talking about my transmission?

        1. Your “transmission”, eh? ***wink-wink-nudge-nudge***

          1. Just once I want to see a trans activist hassling mechanics rather than easily intimidated college students.

  3. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Nice try ADOLPH!!!

      1. You know what other Adolph tried to start his own online busine….wait, never mind.

    2. The only kind of ‘business’ that wants to recruit more participants is a pyramid scheme.
      Virtually all Real Businesses don’t invite more competition.

      FO, Adolph.

  4. Trans-fat loooooophoooolez!

  5. They should ban High Fructose Corn Syrup if anything, but like Ethanol, Corn rules

    1. They should ban, bans.

    2. What? And just turn good old American Coca-Cola into Mexican Coca-Cola? You monster!

      1. Not really much wrong with HFCS that isn’t already wrong with sugar, but sugar Coke tastes better.

        1. You are correct, but are you trying to summon Tulpa?

          I haven’t heard a sermon on the evils of Jew Coke lately.

          1. Oh, right, I forgot about that. Dave W. used to hate on HFCS. Back in the Before Time.

            1. I’m not sure who to hate.

      2. next thing you know he’ll be going after distributors of Passover Coke.

      3. only if it comes with butt sex and teh drugs

    3. Korn rulez!

      1. I remember Karo Syrup on waffles and pancakes when I was a kid.
        Delicious! Thick, Syrupy!
        Ah, for the Good Old Days!

        and screw the FDA….

        1. Karo is still in stores–I use it as substitute for honey because the cost of honey skyrocketed in our area.

    4. They should be abolished, as clearly and obviously no business of any level of government. The case against HFCS is likely utter bushwa, other than the basic observation that eating a bunch of sugar probably isn’t great. The coming ruling against trans-fat wouldn’t be an issue if the FDA had kept it’s trap shut about saturated fat.

      We eeed to start telling these government stooges to fuck off.

      1. FDA kept its trap shut. It was Congress that mandated the labeling.

      2. The funny (in a nasty, evil way) part of the HFCS issue is that it’s similar to the trans fat issue. HFCS came into wide use because of the Federal Government sticking its nose into the sugar market. They caused the price of sugar to raise exponentially, making HFCS an economical substitute.

  6. Seriously? Banning a significant subcategory macro-nutrient? As well command the tides to stop

    1. Power is a hell of a drug.

    2. I’ve been trying to get them to repeal the law of gravity for years. Of course they won’t do it though, they’re all in the pocket of big airline.

    3. It just means that we have to buy fresh twinkies.

  7. There is no good reason to ever cook with trans fats. Use butter or lard or duck fat like Jesus says to in the Bible.

    1. What about squats? You forgot to mention squats.

      1. Good point. If you can squat 675, you can cook with transfats.

          1. Of course, given how fat most guys are who can squat 7 plates, shitty transfat-laden cheap fatass food may be mandatory.

    2. There is a good reason if you are a food company. It extends shelf life by a significant amount.
      Now we have to buy fresh cinnabons.

      1. If you’re going to eat cinnamon rolls like a disgusting fat person, you might as well go to the extra trouble of buying good ones or making them yourself, though.

        1. *pulls out notepad*

          Recipe?

          1. One package of dinner rolls. One stick of butter. A canister of sugar and cinnamon, mixed. Place ingredients in piehole and chew, fatty.

            1. I was hoping for something with a cream cheese frosting, but I’ll make do.

          2. Can’t go wrong with these:

            http://www.epicurious.com/reci…..s-51251020

            1. I’m gonna make those. With trans fats.

              1. Better hurry before it’s too late.

                If they would just finish fine tuning Obamacare they could just create a seperate catagory for trans faters like smokers.

                1. and separate dining areas in restaurants, too?

            2. I was expecting something different from a website named Epi Curious. H&R does strange things to your head.

          3. This looks like a good start. It might be a little chintzy on the butter, though. I’d have to make it to see.

    3. Well sure, but tastes can differ and you aren’t free until you’re free to be wrong. But I’ve nearly got our household totally switched over to butter and bacon fat. The side effect is that my 18 month old loves saut?ed spinach.

      1. I’ve been on a big collard green thing lately. But greens of all types sauteed in bacon grease, or even plenty of olive oil, are a sublime thing.

      2. I’ve been using chicken fat for saut?eing. Sometimes I render it, but usually I can keep it clean enough on recovery.

  8. The DGAC literally just overturned decades of popular thinking about cholesterol. Why are we so certain they’re right on saturated fats? I know, I know, fuck you, that’s why.

    1. Trans fats are a different thing than the general category of saturated fats. I don’t think any biochemists will tell you any longer that butter is bad for you, though I may be wrong. But partially hydrogenated soybean oil is a different thing.

    2. Natural fats are in for a number of reason, da chemistry, the bad studies in the 60’s that the gov used to build the stupid food pyramid, some paleo logic, etc.

  9. Bring back mah tasty tasty lard you bastards. /old enough to remember what a McDonalds’ french fry cooked in beef tallow tasted like—one of the most delicious foods ever created IMO.

    1. You csc thank Eric Schlosser and the Hindu community for that, I think.

      1. And then there was the activist jerk who convinced them to remove coconut oil from my favorite Pepperidge Farm cookies, which have never been as good since.

        1. Remove coconut oil? But I thought coconut oil was trendy and in, like as “bulletproof coffee”.

            1. So THAT’S why I don’t have the uncontrollable urge to finish the third bag of Mint Milanos anymore …

            2. also amusing that the article appeared next to the Obits?

    2. Another commenter here, who happens to be a vegetarian, informed me that there is still beef extract in the french fry recipe at Mcdonald’s. Not the same as beef tallow, but still not vegetarian.

      1. And doesn’t recreate the taste. It was their old french fries that made them a fast food super power not their nasty little burgers.

        1. I can attest to this. The fires now suck.
          And considering that a Big Mac is only a few dollars less than a gourmet burger, I’ve stopped going. They’re going to have to go to 24 hour breakfasts to get me back.

          1. They have these “premium” mcdoubles now that they lose money selling original mcdoubles for a buck. I tried the jalepeno one last night. For $2.17 you get a tasty snack. It has these fried crispy jalepeno yummy things on it and…drool.

          2. No, I think the fires still provide some excitement. & their French fries are better than the fancied-up breaded ones at Burger King. Burger King had good ones until they got the crazy idea they should be breaded.

      2. To keep your sanity as a vegetarian you have to learn to ignore things like this. As far as I’m concerned this is just an urban legend (also, no restaurant would be crazy enough to use chicken broth in an otherwise vegetarian soup).

        1. Most vegetarian websites say it’s a no go.

          “FRENCH FRIES:
          Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]*, Citric Acid [Preservative]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt.”

          From here:
          http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com…..tslist.pdf

          1. Natural beef flavor is made from wheat and milk?

          2. Most vegetarian websites say it’s a no go.

            Nah. I’ve eaten plenty of McDonald’s fries and I’ve never tasted anything non-vegetarian in them.

          3. Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

            1. Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

              Vegetarians can eat whatever the hell they want. Well, except for Trans Fats if the FDA gets its way…

        2. Reminds me of a successful lawsuit by a vegetarian guy against an Italian restaurant over the use of anchovies in the marinara sauce. He won six hundred bucks.

          1. Wait. I thought it was okay to eat fish because they don’t have any feelings.

            1. “ethical” vegetarians are a pain in the ass.

              1. Though I did date this red headed super pure, pure vegan for about 6 months. Her pussy literally had no flavor or scent.

                  1. Yea the only animal protein she got.

                1. Feed her some asparagus.

          2. Unless the restaurant advertised that there were no animal products in the marinara sauce, fuck that vegetarian asshole.

        3. That presumes vegetarians have any sanity to keep. That level of of ascetism does strange things to the mind.

    3. The only thing better was the pies fried in lard. Oh how I miss those.

      1. Ah, those were good.

  10. Maybe they will start using lard again, as God intended. If this pushes people to start using lard in more things again, that will be good. Transfats are an inferior substitute. Of course, I don’t think anything should be banned. Simple consumer pressure has already done a lot to reduce the use of transfats in food. But some people just can’t be happy unless they get to use some force.

    1. Trans fats are superior in 1 way only: shelf life.

      I make my own tortilla chips if I have the deep fryer out. They’re good for 2-3 days fried in canola oil.

      If I had partially hydrogenated oils, they would keep for a month.

      1. Rape seed apologist!

        1. He’s Canadian?!?

  11. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD!

  12. Protip: most of the lard you can get in grocery stores is partially hydrogenated to extend its shelf life. The best way to get good lard is to render it yourself and freeze it in stick-of-butter-sized chunks.

    1. What kind of sick fuck has to worry about the shelf life of lard? My tub o bacon grease has to be refilled weekly…thank the gods for our Friday Pork fests…or I’d always be running out.

  13. Between 2006 and 2013, following both an FDA labeling requirement and a steady increase in warnings from food researchers that trans fats might not be all that healthy, average daily consumption dropped from 4.6 grams to 1 gram, according to The New York Times.

    See how powerful regulation is? The FDA transfat ban has already slash transfat use!

    /prog

  14. Yet another case of the government “fixing” something, only to later discover that they’d made things worse. See also how we were all supposed to eat more carbs and less protein, MTBE in gasoline, etc.

    I challenge the statements that getting rid of transfats will somehow make anything taste worse. AFAIK they are used for shelf life and economy reasons, not taste. I doubt if donuts tasted more “oily” in the old days.

  15. So…they were utterly wrong about trans fats for years and years. And now they want people to listen to them–in fact, not listen, just accept a ban–on a fat type that they were too stupid to get right before. But now they’ve got it! Right? Am I reading this correctly?

    Banning basic kinds of foods is the last straw. It’s the marker of a government that has lost its shit (more than governments usually do, at least). This is nothing more than “we will ban this because we were wrong about it and therefore it makes us look stupid, so we will counter that with a display of raw power. And also fuck you, that’s why. Enjoy, peasants!”

    1. I have been studiously ignoring the government’s dietary guidelines my entire life. As a consequence though a I am a middle-aged nicotine/caffeine addict, I am not fat (5’6″, 130lb), and I do not have heart disease, high blood pressure, or diabetes.

      1. You monster!

        1. I know. My friends and family who eat “healthy” think I’ve made some sort of pact with the devil.

      2. I’m gonna need some pix for proof. You understand, right?

        1. “I find the most erotic part of a woman to be the boobies”

        2. I have no pics of me online. One of these days I will get to a meet up or a Reason cruise or possibly when they send us to the camps and then you can see for yourself that my measurements are indeed 36, 26, 36.

          1. Wait I was wrong. Me. I am the lady in red/black in the top left corner pic and the lady in blue and white playing a mandolin in front of a tree further down the page.

            1. NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD

              *masturbates*

            2. Hey, you really are middle aged.

              Funny, I didn’t know ya’ll had camers back then.

          2. Just put your Facebook page link up. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?

            (Glances at Warty)

            1. I do not do the facebook. And I can’t remember the password to my belly dancing troupe’s you tube channel.

              1. Just give me a link, I’m sure I can hack it in no time.

      3. When the government gave us a ‘suggestive’ menu for our daycare my bleeding heart sister read it and threw it away muttering ‘get the fuck out of here with this crap’ under her breath.

        It was garbage and uninspired compared to ours. Problem is, the government can give us problems if they choose.

      4. Caffeine’s next on the hit list.

    2. Banning basic kinds of foods is the last straw.

      Except that transfats aren’t really a “basic kind of food.” They’re a modern invention that has negative health effects.

      1. Eating food is a leading cause of death. Every one who has ever eaten food is either dead or dying.

  16. all in an effort to stamp out an ingredient that has been used for decades, and is now in widespread decline.

    Gotta run to the front of the parade!

    1. But that’s the thing about the “generally recognized” provisions in the FFDCA: If the consensus of experts changes, FDA is obligated to follow that change.

      It is possible to go thru a food additive petition process that’s independent of GRAS determination, but since the opinion as it’d come back from an advisory panel would undoubtedly be the same, it’d make no sense for anyone to go thru such a proceeding.

  17. In my 40 plus years of existence I’ve come to the rather sober realization and acceptance that health food zealots are clueless control freaks.

  18. “I’m not saying that the science is wrong now. Maybe?probably?the public health wisdom is right this time, or at least pretty close.”

    It’s well-known that the statistical techniques commonly used in epidemiological studies is highly suspect. Most glaringly, they commonly rely on non-randomized observational studies and fail to adequately control for other factors. They also routinely fail to correct for multiple testing. That is, they ask multiple questions of the same data set but use the standard 95% statistical significance threshold. When you ask enough questions of the same data set, you are nearly guaranteed to find one that has 95% statistical significance but that is in fact the result of random chance.

    1. Yes. Sometimes they identify the markers not the causative agents as the culprits.

  19. Don’t blame FDA, blame Congress. Could you read the FFDCA in a way that wouldn’t require FDA to undertake these actions, without bending & twisting a lot?

    FDA undertakes some things that are more pro-regulatory than Congress intended, but also some things that are more deregulatory than Congress’s words seem to imply. But for the most part they follow Congress’s wording as closely as administrators reasonably could.

  20. Hey, regulators gotta regulate. These drones have to do something to justify their existence – even if it’s stupid, useless and annoying.

  21. It’s simple: go back to frying stuff in lard, tallow, palm and coconut oil. Saturated fats are not bad for you, trans fat are.

  22. Congress could enact an exemption for trans fat as they’ve done for numerous things in the past, such as saccharine.

  23. This works out great for the regulators.

    Step 1-Reglate something that’s use is already in decline.
    Step 2-In ten years, point to the regulations as being the cause of the decline.
    Step 3-Reap praise and regulate something else based on the success of the earlier regs because people are too stupid and/or lazy to fact check.

    1. A lot of the decline in trans fat usage did happen when the FDA started requiring that they be included in the “Nutrition Facts” under their own heading.

  24. Being a government official means never having to apologize for being wrong — no matter how often it happens, and no matter how much harm it does — as long as the error enabled the strengthening of the Behemoth.

  25. Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

    By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

    You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? ? Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

    According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis ? the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

    1. “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

      The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

      1. Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

        “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

        The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

        1. The plaque builds up to fill in leisions in the arteries. The trick is to keep arteries sort and supple. Can the medical profession address that? Or are we on our own with vitamin D, fish oil or the supplement du jour?

  26. Looks like even the heart disease and food causation is being tossed to the GUTTER with the rest of the JUNK SCIENCE!

    Heart March 17, 2014, 5:00 pm 236 Comments

    Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link

    By ANAHAD O’CONNOR

    Many of us have long been told that saturated fat, the type found in meat, butter and cheese, causes heart disease. But a large and exhaustive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evidence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events.

    The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you and will continue the debate about what foods are best to eat.

    1. For decades, health officials have urged the public to avoid saturated fat as much as possible, saying it should be replaced with the unsaturated fats in foods like nuts, fish, seeds and vegetable oils.

      But the new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

      “My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat that we should worry about” in our diets, said Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the new study and a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the department of public health and primary care at Cambridge University.

      But Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings should not be taken as “a green light” to eat more steak, butter and other foods rich in saturated fat. He said that looking at individual fats and other nutrient groups in isolation could be misleading, because when people cut down on fats they tend to eat more bread, cold cereal and other refined carbohydrates that can also be bad for cardiovascular health.

  27. The government should not be dictating what may be eaten.

    But long live libertarians, so therefore… be aware that the association between saturated fat and heart disease, in innumerable epidemiological studies, is overwhelming. Anyone who waves these facts away because they “don’t prove causation” has an agenda that does not include your health.

    As to the study that this H&R piece links to — once indirectly via NPR and once directly:

    When a paper published on 17 March questioned whether fats from fish or vegetable oils are healthier than those in meat or butter, it quickly made headlines around the world; after all, the study seemed to debunk a cornerstone of many dietary guidelines. But a new version of the publication had to be posted shortly after it appeared on the website of the Annals of Internal Medicine to correct several errors. And although the study’s first author stands by the conclusions, a number of scientists are criticizing the paper and even calling on the authors to retract it.

    That’s the first paragraph of an article in Science magazine.

    1. Anals of Internal Medicine?

    2. be aware that the association between saturated fat and heart disease, in innumerable epidemiological studies, is overwhelming

      A lot of studies claim to have found some effect. But even if that effect is real (it might just be publication bias), it is small and only applies at the population level.

      These studies are irrelevant for your individual health. If you are susceptible to heart disease from consuming too much saturated fat, it will show up in your physical exam long before any damage has occurred, and your doctor will recommend you cut it out. For the rest of us, saturated fat in the diet is irrelevant.

  28. Not be ” generally recognized as safe”

    If you want to be safe , write your congressman to remind him what happened in France when the Committee Of Public Safety gained the whip hand..

  29. Fran’s Tat.

    Just because I could.

  30. This is more than a little bit ironic

    It would be ironic if it was in some way unusual; however, it is really just normal operating procedure: the government picks random scientific ideas, declares them as a silver bullet, justifies massive cronyism and pork spending, then changes its mind a decade or two later, and repeats the whole thing.

  31. I make $4 over and over again just by using facebook,ask me how? in a day i make 25-60$ Ask me on Site

    ………….. http://www.Wage-Report.com

  32. Nutitional science is junk science.

  33. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  34. I eat foods that are fatty to lose weight. It takes more calories to burn fat and break it down into glucose than eating sugar. Bacon, avocados, crispy chicken skin, salmon skin roll sushi, cheese. . . mmm! Blue cheese on ginger snaps accompanied by a glass of scotch. Yum.

  35. Genetics ? Maybe DNA plays a part in this. . . Of course it does.

  36. the FDA is making life a little less tasty and it will release a final ruling that “all but” bans trans fats any time through the movie

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.