"trans fats" news and stories

• More snow coming this week! Hunker down with some homemade soup.
• Even in the dead of winter, wild shrimp is always in season up in Maine.
• This Mainer isn't taking trans fats lying down. No, she's started a revOILution.
• Got the sniffles? Have some chicken soup...and ginger...and garlic...

Even the most careful calorie-counters would be duped by the newfound limitations on trans-fat labeling. Those "trans fat free" foods may not be so.

Case Western Reserve University of Medicine graduate student Eric Brandt published a piece in the January/February issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion stating that the Food and Drug Administration allows foods containing less than .5 grams of trans fat to be labeled "trans fat free" or "zero trans fat," reports My Health News Daily.

"That's because the policy requires that fat amounts less than 5 grams be listed in 0.5 gram increments, and allows food producers to round down to the lower increment," reports the Daily. "Foods with more than 5 grams of fat are required to use one gram increments."

Brandt notes that eating at least three such items could take you over the daily recommended max of 1.11 grams of trans fats -- three items at .49 grams would equal 1.47 grams -- which could lead to increased risk of coronary artery disease and diabates. The article makes a call to arms (that is, the FDA) to change labeling laws to indicate trans fats starting with .1 grams, so we can finally see what those "zero trans fat" Krispy Kreme donuts are really made of.

Read "The Skinny on Fats" at KitchenDaily for more info, and click "Continue" for a video on trans-fat labling.

I might not be the best person to talk about chocolate. Growing up, my favorite candies were generally the tart, fake-fruit flavored ones, like Smarties, Sweet Tarts, Lemonheads, Runts, and certain Jolly Rancher flavors. However, even in the midst of my deepest obsession with the sour side of the candy chain, I still had a special place in my heart for a few chocolate treats. Reese's cups, Caramello, and Chunky bars have always held a strange power over me and I've never been able to walk past a bowl full of M&Ms without grabbing a handful. After I got married, my wife dragged me over to the dark side, and I discovered the wonders of dark chocolate, particularly when paired with red wine. Even now, though, I will sometimes indulge my deep appreciation of plebian chocolate treats, especially when my wife isn't looking.

Recently, though, I came across an article that makes me a little worried about the future of my favorite mass-market chocolate goodies. Some candy companies, including Hershey's and Nestle, are substituting cheap vegetable oils for cocoa butter in their chocolate bars. While this saves a lot of money, it also reduces the creaminess and flavor of the chocolate; some consumers have described the new products as tasting "waxy and artificial."

On the bright side, the FDA has ruled that products which do not contain cocoa butter cannot refer to themselves as chocolate. Consequently, many former "chocolate bars" now boast that they are "made with chocolate," are "chocolate candy," or have "chocolate coating." Most of the major candy companies have unsuccessfully fought this, while smaller manufacturers are desperately supporting the labeling restrictions.

While Nestle and Hershey's try to decide if they're willing to spend a few more pennies to ensure a top-quality chocolate experience, you might want to take a long, hard look at your candy bar. After all, if you're willing to splurge on calories and cash, shouldn't you get the best possible chocolate experience?

Interesting list over at ACalorieCounter.com: 10 Surprising Foods That Contain Trans Fat.

Now, he admits that a couple of foods on the list aren't that surprising (such as Ritz Crackers or cookies), but he explains that many foods that are advertised as "0 trans fats" actually contain some trans fats, the amount is just low enough to be able for them to say it's "0." And the amount goes up more if a person has more than the one serving size that labels have the amounts for (and we all know we all eat more than one serving).

I didn't think plain Saltines had trans fat, but there you go.

Despite urges from various British food organizations, the European Food Safety Authority decided against banning additives in food.

Their reasoning? A recent £750,000 study, which found a link between eating food loaded with additives and colorants and impulsive/hyperactive behavior in kids, was not a substantial enough reason to ban the additives entirely. In the study, eight and nine year olds who had ingested food with additives could not sit still long enough to complet simple tasks, like a 15-minute computer exercise. (Yeah, but neither could most of the eight year olds I know, with or without stimulants. Heck, most 25 year-olds I know don't have the patience to finish a 15-minute computer task).

But the study did prompt some retailers to change their ways: Marks and Spencer, a British department store that sells everything from shirts to iPods to gourmet foods, vowed to stop selling food and drink that contain additives by the end of the month.

The study results should not be ignored, but I don't blame the EU for not jumping to conclusions. Banning food with additives falls along the same lines as banning food with trans-fats, and I have the same opinion in each case: use your own good judgment and discretion. If packaged foods make your kid hyperactive, don't buy the foods, or at least limit their intake. Simple as that.

[via] Times Online

Source