Talk:Trans fat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Effect on the Immune System

At some point someone added this phrase:

"early clinical research shows an important role of these naturally occuring trans fatty acids in the immune system"

I think this sounds completely false, as all research I have seen is that even 1 gram a day in very unhealthy. Is there even a single such study? It may be thoroughly influenced by funding by the TFA industry, but let's at least reference it. Perhaps "important" is meant in the sense of "dangerous. Perhaps someone was confused with some of the very healthy natural saturated fats. Carltonh 22:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed or referenced.

Perhaps it is a reference to vaccenic acid, which is a precursor to CLA. (Can be converted to CLA in humans, or by ruminants, then eaten as CLA.) EricE 02:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Of course it's a reference to CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) which is a naturally occuring trans fatty acid in ruminant (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) meat and milk, and now some people are making it out of vegetable oils.(I don't know what fatty acid vaccenic acid actually is from a chemical perspective, per the last comment, and whether it's a trans fatty acid).I'm also afraid the person making the original conmmentary is misinformed/doesn't understand chemistry and nutrition and the last three sentences should be deleted as it's rather biased. Try http://www.das.psu.edu/dcn/catnut/PDF/DAS0488CLA.pdf for some reasonable scientific discussion on the subject. I'd also guess the dairy and beef associations might have some links to studies that talk about the benefits of CLA. Also you can check any research associated with an ingredient called "Tonalin," one of the vegetable-oil-derived versions of CLA. LAK 20:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FDA Estimate

I don't believe the FDA estimate of lives saved quoted at the end of the article. If trans fatty acids (TFA) are truly the risk factor for high LDL and hence atherosclerosis instead of saturated fats in general, I would expect the number of early deaths to drop by orders of magnitude greater than the numbers cited.

But I'm sure the estimate has taken into account human behavior. How many people read labels? How many follow nutritionists' advice? To what extent will they cut back? Compliance will be far from complete. 168...

A possible article correction: there are margarines available that are free of TFA. They may not taste quite as good, but one gets used to the altered taste and the health benefits are worth it.

I heartily second the recommendation to avoid all foods made with hydrogenated vegetable oil.

PS - I have hypercholesterolemia, but have recently added unadulterated peanut butter ('Teddie' brand), which is extremely high in saturated fat but free of TFA, to my diet.

David 14:04 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about adding a link to a comprehensive table that shows how much trans fat is contained in common foods? I saw several tables on the web but none were comprehensive. -- Andrew

Name

This article should really reside at Trans fatty acid, as it's what is being discussed. I know our naming guidelines state the article should reside at the most common name, but why should we put the article at the technically incorrect name just because the FDA allows the food manufacturers to use fat because it's shorter than fatty acid in a lable? As a common (wrong) alternate use, trans fat should be the redirect. Gentgeen 10:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe that fat molecules are actually triglyceride molecules which are glycerine (a triol) esterified with three fatty acid molecules. In the case of trans-fats, it would make sense if the fatty acid parts of the triglycerides would contain trans-fatty acids. Thus, I propose that trans-fats and trans-fatty acids are two chemical different but related things. H Padleckas 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gentgeen's comment is 100% correct. The correct term is trans fatty acid (the same also applies to saturated fats vs. saturated fatty acids). Trans fats (and saturated fats) are shorthand (lazy? uniformed?) ways to refer to them. The problem with HPadleckas' way of thinking is if we go down that road, then we might as well call canola oil, soybean oil etc. a "saturated fat" because they contain about 10% saturated fatty acids vs. the fats that traditionally go by the name "saturated fat": lard, beef tallow, palm (all about 50-60% saturated fatty acids) and palm kernel and coconut (both in the 90% range if I remember correctly.)LAK 20:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Of hardness, candy bars, and labelling

I highly doubt this statement:

If the hydrogenation process were allowed to go to completion, there would be no trans fatty acids left, but the resulting material would be too solid for practical use.

The most common trans fatty acid in hydrogenated oils is elaidic acid (18:1-9). (Source: Enig, Know your Fats) If it were fully hydrogenated, it would be stearic acid, a very useful food fatty acid.

I'd like to see this referenced or slightly altered:

For example, a typical candy bar might have a shelf life of 30 days without use of hydrogenated oils, while the same product with hydrogenated oils can last up to 18 months.

That sounds like just a guess and is dependent on so many things. Candy bars in particular could use saturated fatty acids, which are not especially subject to rancidity.

In the labelling section It should be noted that trans fat amounts less than 0.5 g/serving can be listed as zero. This creates an effective loophole. A manufacturer may specify a small serving size such as 1 cookie. If that 1 cookie has 0.4 g of fat, though listed as 0, and you have 5 cookies, you've consumed 2 g trans fat, which is significant.

On the other side of the confusion, the mere presence of partially hydrogenated oil on a label does not mean there are any trans fats, or there may be truly negligible amounts. A good example of that is commercial peanut butter. Any peanut butter which doesn't say "natural" will have some partially hydrogenated oils added to it. However, the amount of trans fat is negligible. See: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2001/010612.htm .

EricE 03:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all:

Only PARTIALLY hydrogenated oils (fats, triglycerides, or if we are sticking to the scientific terms, triacylglycerols) will have trans fatty acids (and the amount varies based on the degree of hydrogenation). If a fat is fully hydrogenated, at least in theory, that means all the double bonds are gone so you can't have a trans (or cis for that matter) configuration because those rely on the hydrogens' position relative to the double bond.

Second:

A fat comprised entirely of stearic acid WOULD be "too solid" for practical purposes, like making Oreo filling or Crisco. Stearates ARE useful but only as an "ingredient" (if you will) to make other fats--which is how a lot of the fats end up being "trans free" or "lower in trans"

Third:

The candy bar example is vague tho I'd take it to mean that that's the difference perhaps between a regular soy oil and one that's hydrogenated. But a candy bar is a pretty bad example to use.

Fourth:

Unless they've changed recently, peanut butter stabilizers are fully hydrogenated,hence, no trans.LAK 21:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Illogical writing

However any hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oil will contain trace amounts of the metals used in the process of hydrogenation.

This line has no relevance to the paragraph it's in.

If the hydrogenation process were allowed to go to completion, there would be no trans fatty acids left, but the resulting material would be too solid for practical use. A claimed exception to this is Kraft Foods' new trans fat free Crisco which contains the wax-like fully hydrogenated cottonseed oil blended with liquid vegetable oils to yield a shortening much like the previous Crisco which was made from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. However any hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oil will contain trace amounts of the metals used in the process of hydrogenation. In a natural fatty acid, the hydrogen atoms usually form a double bond on the same side of the carbon chain. However, partial hydrogenation reconfigures most of the double bonds that do not become chemically saturated, so that the hydrogen atoms end up on different sides of the chain. This type of configuration is called trans (which means "across" in Latin). The structure of a trans unsaturated chemical bond is shown in the diagram.

I recommend deletion of the particular sentence. Also, the paragraph should probably be split up into two or more.

Maybe not completely "illogical writing"?

That phrase on metal residues is not really irrelevant to the case of trans-fats formation. Those who saw the real 10% nickel-fat blend, which is the waste of margarine production, would understand what I mean - the more complete is hydrogenation, the less trans-fats it produces, however if the fat becomes more solid the settling rate of spent catalyst particles in it delayes, so their concentrations in final product would increase. Marabod 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

What I plan to do:

1. "Labelling of trans fats" and "Legislation" sections appear linked. Need to reorganize this.

2. Remove external links besides those in "Sources" section. (Except when backing up a specific assertion) --RainR 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please rewrite this Canada section

What does this mean? A "similar ban" to what? There is no reference of a ban to which this could be similar. There is only reference in the preceding sentence to Canada taking a positive stand with food labelling.

• In November 2004, an opposition day motion seeking a similar ban was introduced by Pat Martin of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and passed through the Canadian House of Commons by an overwhelming 193-73 vote.

Mrendo 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FDA Extensions and non-compliance

Added information on non-compliance with US labeling requirements. I work for a label printing company, mainly retail food labels. I've never personally seen a non-zero trans fat quantity on any food label. The FDA is granting extensions on weak pretenses it seems. I can't find a reference to just how widespread this is, but I did find that one reference to the FDA extension process that mentions extensions may be granted for up to 2 years. I included information I believe to be verifiable. More sources on this matter will likely become available in early 2006 if many labels remain non-compliant for long after the new year. Gigs 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FDA loopholes?

I've seen non-zero trans fat quantities. However, the big problem is that the FDA has allowed manufacturers to say there are zero grams of trans fat if the product contains <500mg/serving. So if there are 499mg/serving, the label says zero grams. You basically have to look at the ingredients because you can't trust the label. This is reprehensible, not least of all because many people eat more than one serving, and serving sizes are very small for some foods. I think this caveat should be highlighted in the article.

Furthermore, I've noticed foods that I KNOW had trans fat at one point (Dorito's corn chips, for example) now make no mention of "partially hydrogenated..." in the ingredients. Did Frito-Lay really change the recipe OR does some other egregious FDA loophole simply let them get away with calling it plain old "vegetable oil?" The chips taste exactly the same as before. I refuse to believe that they're magically using liquid oil now.

Globe199 19:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Believe what you want, but the recipe has been changed. It's something that's been in the works since 2002, and has been well-publicized for at least the last year or so. Do some googling. Stubblyhead 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Nonsense. Doritos still say partially hydrogentated in plain English in the ingredients. Yet their store displays proclaim "zero grams of trans fat." This is a complete LIE. Frito-Lay assumes (perhaps rightly) that consumers are too stupid to actually read the ingredient list. (I made a mistake in my earlier posting. Only on the small snack-size bags don't mention "partially hydrogenated" -- the larger bags say it.)

• • As long as I'm bitching about it, here's a question. I've noticed a lot of foods mention partially hydrogenated whatever in the ingredients, but then use an asterisk. At the bottom of the list it says "Adds a trivial amount of trans fat." Does anyone know what the FDA considers "trivial?" Because we all know how soft the FDA has been on these companies -- I don't doubt they'd allow maybe up to 50 or even 100mg before the "trivial" designator can't be used. Globe199 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Gee--is there NO case to be made for--at least--limited consumption of these p.h. veg oils? The article risks sounding a little, er, health cranky as it stands . . . Not that I'd be the one to add this. I just think there should be (an attempted) defense of their use within the article, especially given these products' wide use. I actually think this would make the arguments against p.h. veg oils more effective. Nhrenton 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)N. Renton

There is a long history of widely-used food additives turning out to be a serious scourge upon public health. While I agree that the article could probably be cleaned up to some extent, the limited advantages of using partially hydrogenated oils are mentioned in the article, including food preservation and low cost of the oils. However, I think many experts would agree that the emphasis on negative effects is entirely appropriate given the physiological effects of trans fats. Frankg 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How much is considered too much?

This should be in the article, with varying points of view on how much would be too much. JONJONAUG 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no safe level of trans. Just like drinking turpentine, you shouldn't do it. -- cmh 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you base this on? Saying any is unsafe implies that, if someone at a cafe slipped a bit into my coffee instead of cream, I can now feel free to eat Oreos, since I'm already trans fat doomed. This seems unlikely. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an all or nothing argument. Drinking a bit of turpentine is clearly less bad than drinking a lot. It doesn't change the fact that a little bit is considered harmful. It's based on reading I've done in the past. I don't have a hard source handy, which is why it's a comment on a talk page rather than in the article. -- cmh 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if this were quantified, either in the talk page or, better, in the article. Hopefully someone with a hard source can do so. Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, even Ban Trans Fats states on their homepage that, "The AHA recommends that your daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories, which is equivalent to roughly 2 to 2.5 grams of trans fat per day." Clearly the AHA and Ban Trans Fats believe that there is a safe level. I guess I'll add that into the article when I address these other issues.... Calbaer 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that they think that there's a safe level, it just means that they think restricting intake to those amounts will be an improvement on current levels (7% was a figure I read today) and a guideline that people can follow. Any amount of trans fats is harmful, unlike other food components. For example, there is a "safe" level of methylmercury consumption, because our bodies can apparently chelate/dispose of a certain amount of mercury before it builds up and causes harm. Likewise, there are "safe" levels of sodium, saturated fat, and linoleic acid, because our bodies need those all to some extent, but too much is definitely harmful. Now, if the general harm caused by trans fats increases exponentially or logarithmically relative to intake, rather than linearly, I can see the case made for a minimum "safe" level that, for all intents and purposes, causes virtually no damage. However, I don't think the research has progressed to the point where that kind of thing can be quantified. Frankg 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So it would be accurate to say, "While there's no evidence that any amount of trans fat is harmless, advocacy groups and the AHA recommend daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories." Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it. Frankg 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can do better than what is proposed above. I've taken the time to track down a rock-solid source. The national academies of science are the scientific bodies that advise the government, and among other things, set the official "RDI"s that are used to determine food labels in Canada and the US. The summary from the most recent recommentations is here. The important facts are as follows (these are quotes, my added comments are italicized):

• Trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health.
• Therefore, no AI or RDA is set. (that means no amount needed per day or recommended daily amount)
• there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of CHD.
• A UL is not set for trans fatty acids because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases CHD risk.
• trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan diets (they naturally appear in dairy products, for instance)
• Nevertheless, it is recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.

Here are some other facts from within the details of the chapter (quotes where indicated):

• Human milk contains 1-5% trans fat [1].
• "No studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of trans fatty acids that are present in meats and dairy products on LDL concentrations. The relative effect of trans fatty acids in meat and dairy products on LDL cholesterol concentration would be small compared to hydrogenated oils because of the lower levels that are present, and because any rise in concentration would most likely be due to the abundance of saturated fatty acids." [2]
• Trans fats appear to increase the LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio. This "lead to the concern that dietary trans fatty acids are more deleterious with respect to CHD than saturated fatty acids." [3]

I'm going to incorporate some of these facts in the page now. -- cmh 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Saves me work and makes it better. I'll see it after you're done, I guess. Just be sure to put it in an accurate, NPOV way. "There is no safe level" is wrong (since one molecule would be safe). "There is no minimum recommended level due to the linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration" (or something like that) would be best. Calbaer 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to have an anti-US POV. However, I'm not sure of the veracity of some of the statements, so I'm not sure whether to merely restate the same things in non-POV fashion or eliminate them. For example:

• "Outside the US, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings" is stated, but is this true? Is it true in the most populated countries, for example, such as Russia, China, and (if butter products like ghee don't limit trans fat sales) India? I know that I recently bought some Top Ramen made in India; some had trans fats, some (supposedly) didn't. The article on margarine seems to assume no country-by-country difference, so I'm not sure which article is more accurate. I suspect that it may be truer to say, "In Western Europe and Canada, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings."

• "These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health. Rather than preventing the sale of trans fats, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels." Do advocacy groups promote a total ban? Is it a high cost for every consumer? This statement seems to assume that rational countries ban them, while the US does not. Does any country aside from brave little Denmark ban trans fats?

On an unrelated note, why is trans usually italicized in this article? This should either be explained or eliminated. Also, do any studies provide an indication of whether there's a link to cancer? I thought I recalled hearing that, so whether it's true or misinformation, something should be said about it. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Trans" is in italics because it's a scientific term. I've seen some studies investigating the influence of trans fats on colon cancer, but nothing beyond that. Frankg 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all scientific terms need to be italicized, however, I'll let the two of you sort this out. There has been a lot of work done on trans and cardiovascular health... I just don't have a lot of the data handy just now. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if it remains italicized either way, I was just explaining why it was in the first place. We should probably follow any applicable Wikipedia policy. And yeah, I get the impression most of the research has been done in the area of the effects of trans fats on arterial plaque, erroneous incorporation into cell membranes (also a cardiovascular factor), and inhibition of certain enzymes (also affecting both heart health, and inflammation). Broader research will probably come to light in the coming years. Frankg 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Style#Italics has no indication that scientific words should be italicized and says to use italics sparingly. If cmh doesn't eliminate them, I will. Calbaer 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The reports I saw all used trans in italics. However, the media doesn't and I don't think common usage does. I suggest we use it in the formal trans fatty acids in the first sentence, but then say most people just call it Trans Fat and leave it unitalicized after that. -- cmh 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something to your concerns. I tagged the first quote for needing a citation a few weeks ago because of a similar concern. I suspect that this kind of statement should be removed if it can't be substantiated. Remember that we cannot use Wikipedia as a source, but need an external citation for things that are not obvious. As for the second point, the quotation also seems to promote a POV. However, we cannot overlook that the most science-based POV on trans fats is the one that promotes the elimination of artificially generated trans. We should do as WP:NPOV recommends and cite all POVs and let the reader decide, but this must be balanced, IMO, by the most reliable and prevalent POV which argues for their virtual elimination. I agree that trans should not be italicized throughout. If you think you can improve the article, I say make a stab at it, and let's add balance, but let's not turn it into a fluff piece for trans fat industry. -- cmh 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Science may say that trans fat is harmful, but that is different from saying trans fat should be banned. Clearly no one would write, "Benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health. Rather than closing down every McDonald's in the US, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the US requires the company to publish its nutritional information." I've never given McDonald's a dime to feed myself and I avoid trans fats like the plague (even urging others to avoid nondairy creamer), but the attitude that the US government should ban every harmful thing is clearly POV. Perhaps it would be better to write, "FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels. Due to the harm to human health, however, some consumer advocacy groups seek a ban of trans fats ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ." But if I were to change the article around, I'd probably add one or two more ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› s, and I don't want to make the article uglier than need be just because I don't know certain things in the article.... Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Statements that are POV should NOT be removed from the article. As per WP:NPOV they should be attributed, and the balanced opposing view presented as well. We present ALL points of view, not NO points of view. If there is a movement to ban trans fats we should write about it. Also, we should cover industry points of view. Ultimately, the perfect trans article should contain all the points of view, each in proportion to its acceptance or prominence. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course POV statements need to be balanced. But needlessly POV statements should be removed. Statements like, "These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health," are needlessly POV. It's already said that these are benefits for food manufactures. It's already said that trans fats come at a high cost to human health. Phrasing it the way it is now pretty much says, "Bad FDA! Bad food companies! Very bad!" while adding nothing of substance. Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article revision

I have revised the article. The new revision has several goals. Move discussion of the goodness of trans largely out of the section describing its uses. Add a nutritional guidelines section and rearrange the article to put technical and historical details after practical reference uses. I have tried to couch the recommendations on dietary consumption in terms of the statements of the NAS rather than as general prohibitions without citation. Note that the NAS does not believe there is a safe level (technically stated as there being no "tolerable upper limit"), however I have attributed this statement to them and put the WHO guideline there. The AHF could be added there too if we feel that more is better, but it is us-centric so I am tempted not to.

Others please feel free to continue to edit and improve the article and clean up any mess I've left. -- cmh 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this! The article is looking good; it's definitely much better organized now. A few comments:

• I think it was unsaturated (cis) fats that go rancid, not saturated ones. I don't think trans fats are any more stable than saturated fats.
• I'm not a vegan, but the article currently seems to imply that vegan diets cause "undesirable side effects and nutritional imbalances." I think this is definitely not unversally true. Certainly some vegan diets are imbalanced for some people, but for others a type of vegan diet may be optimal. Either way, this is the kind of debate the article should be re-worded to not spark if possible.
• I think human milk contains trans fats because of trans fat intake, not because it is produced by humans naturally (which the current text might imply).

I'd be happy to make updates accordingly, but I figured I'd run these by you first if you had an opinion. I also might be wrong about some of this and so it's worth the discussion. Frankg 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Frankg. Go ahead and edit! I won't be offended. I'm not sure about the first point, I thought it was meat fats, but in any case it likely can be edited to improve. Re: vegan, go ahead yes, the wording was the NAS' but I think it can be softened. Re: breast milk, no actually all animal fats contain trans naturally. Just like cow's milk, all mammal milk contains some trans, including Human milk. -- cmh 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retraction: Just went to track the info down. You are correct about human milk. Found the original research and I'll modify the article accordingly. -- cmh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences between plant- and animal-based trans

Frankg, I just saw that you added the content 'do not appear to exhibit the same negative effects' wrt. plant and animal based fats. You cited a dairy board submission to the FDA in support. This is poor optics I think, because the dairy board has a vested interest here.

I have not dug hard, but the NAS made the comment "No studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of trans fatty acids that are present in meats and dairy products on LDL concentrations. The relative effect of trans fatty acids in meat and dairy products on LDL cholesterol concentration would be small compared to hydrogenated oils because of the lower levels that are present, and because any rise in concentration would most likely be due to the abundance of saturated fatty acids." [4].

We need some rock-solid evidence to make the claim that animal based trans are better (even though I suspect this to be the case myself). At the least, the comment should be changed to say that the Dairy Board has asserted that trans fats are better. Perhaps I'll add this for the time being, but feel free to remove it should you find a better way. -- cmh 19:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point is definitely well-taken. I agree that your change should stand for the time being until we find a source that's not likely to be biased. Ultimately, I think the point readers should take home is that avoiding the trans fats in hydrogenated oils should be a priority rather than those in animal fats. I'll do some research/editing later when I have the chance. This has been some great collaboration/editing, BTW! Frankg 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Agree re: editing! -- cmh 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When it became known that trans fats were bad

I have just removed the following recently added text (the italicized text in the following sentence -- my italics): "By 1992, when the health risks of trans fats became known, CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use."

Given the current CSPI court proceedings the italicized content is certainly highly relevant. The reference for the original sentence does not support the added text (indeed, I am sure the author would disagree). It isn't at all clear that CSPI's beginning to speak about trans fats was coincident with our understanding of the risks, and it isn't clear than 1992 is when the risks "became known". If this passage is to be replaced, the statement will require rigourous independent citation. Having said that, a discussion of when the risks did become known would be an asset to this article. -- cmh 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Name?

Why is this article not called by the correct name, which is first mentioned? --Admin of NewSitera

Good question, the answer is that wikipedia's naming conventions say:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

As the name trans fat is what most people use, that is the name of the article here on Wikipedia. Note that both Trans fatty acid and Trans fatty acids redirect to this page, so those searching Wikipedia by those names will still find this page. You seem interested in Wikipedia, why not get involved? -- cmh 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality??? Edit war?? Who's Fluggo?

Hi folks, I added a few paragraphs at the beginning to frame the discussion of all that cool chemistry with a reminder of why there's labelling of trans fats in the first place. Disease and death, that's why.

Is that so non-neutral?

So along comes this anonymous "Fluggo" and reverts the paragraphs with a bogus accusation about lack of neutrality. No attempt to talk, just rockets flipped over the border. Nice guy, that "fluggo". I'd have sent mail, only "Fluggo" is in hiding.

If you think my bias in favor of life over death has infected the piece, OK, so lighten it up a little. The science is good. And check out those sources. Authoritative and on point. And that's only the beginning. Maybe I should have been a lawyer. (Joke)

Why do I keep thinking "Fluggo" was working at his day job when he reverted my editing? Nah, just paranoia.

C'mon, Fluggo, you have better science? Ready to prove trans fats and polycyclics ought be in breakfast cereals? Go for it, man, it sure worked for the tobacco lobby.

--Jrgetsin 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, dude, chill. The fact that you're so worked up over it actually lends credence to my edit. You've got an axe to grind. Now, you've gone back and added the stuff back with more citations. That's cool. I kept what part had citations last time. I've done that this time, but removed the loaded words. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine that has to sell copies. Just stick to what you can prove/cite, and you'll have no trouble from me. Fluggo 14:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably read some of the discussion above. They seem to be talking about the same thing. Fluggo 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Known Health Risks section

I think lots of the information in this section is good. I think, though, that it needs to be better integrated into the article.

The new section covers similar territory to the "presence in food", "nutritional guidelines" and "nutritional biochemistry" sections. While it provides some new facts for all three sections it also duplicates information already in the article.

There has been a recent article cleanup to try to consolidate the information into these three sections, and the new information should be inserted appropriately into these sections and the duplication addressed. -- cmh 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the version of the article I'm looking at is this one. -- cmh 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Reading up a bit on these compounds I find no facts that they're created in hydrogenation. I'm not saying it isn't so, and I didn't dig much, but I don't see it right away. We need a rock solid citation to show that hydrogenation of vegetable oils creates this and that it winds up in food to make a case for including this on the "health" sections of this page. I moved the article content here and it can be reworked/recreated if we need to. -- cmh 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Along with trans fats, hydrogenation also automatically evolves [[polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons]] (PAH's), made up of the same ingredients but more tangled up in form than trans fats. PAH's may pose a graver health risk than the trans fats. <ref>Baird WM, Hooven LA, Mahadevan B. Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA adducts and mechanism of action. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2005, 45(2-3):106-114. Google "polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" for further references.</ref> What happens is that the biotransformation enzymes of the liver metabolize certain carcinogen precursors including polycyclics into active carcinogens, thereby increasing cancer risks.

In the US, the FDA labeling rule which went into effect on January 1, 2006 temporarily evaded the cancer issue by carefully defining trans fats solely and exclusively in terms of their molecular structure ''before'' ingestion. In contrast, the FDA demands that a drug and all its metabolic products must be demonstrated by chemical studies to be safe before clinical trials may even begin to determine if the drug is effective.

Edits by 192.80.211.11

I have reverted some of these changes. I reverted the addition of material to the presence in food because it duplicates information present in other parts of the article, and has a POV tone. I reverted the change to strengthen the claims of relatedness to other conditions, not because I think it is wrong, but because we need to improve that sentence by adding citations rather than just strengthening it. -- cmh 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

I'm in the middle of overhauling the health effects section. I'm pretty happy with the CHD section, and the rest is stuff from a long time ago that I'm sorting though later. -- cmh^TC 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: new section: replacements. The TRANSforming appendix discusses the benefits of tropical oils over butter. -- cmh^TC 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Advanced glycation endproduct

I have removed the following text from the article for now. The citation does not mention trans facts, and I don't (at first glance) see any reliable sources for a conflation of AGE effects and trans fat effects in the literature. It can be restored if needed, but I think we need a bombproof reference for this. -- cmh^TC 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A confounding issue may arise from the cooking process itself, in that trans-fats are often associated with high temperature cooking processes which also favor the formation of [[Advanced glycation endproduct]] (AGEs) and oxidation products. It appears some of the studies have not controlled for these AGEs and oxidation products. It has been suggested that, "given the prominence of this type of food in the human diet, the deleterious effects of high-fat foods may be in part due to the high content in glycotoxins, above and beyond those due to oxidized fatty acid derivatives." <ref>{{cite journal | author=T Koschinsky | title=Orally absorbed reactive glycation products (glycotoxins): an environmental risk factor in diabetic nephropathy | journal=PNAS (USA)| year=1997 | volume=94 | issue=12 | pages= 1699–1705 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed }}</ref> The glycotoxins, as he called them, are more commonly called AGEs.

Pressence in Foods

In the Preccense in Foods section, there are the following paragraphs:

"Benefits of hydrogenating plant-based fats for food manufacturers include an increased product shelf life and decreased refrigeration requirement. Partial hydrogenation raises the melting point of fat, producing a semi-solid material, which is much more desirable than liquid oils for use in baking. Plant-based hydrogenated vegetable oils are much less expensive than the animal fats traditionally favored by bakers, such as butter or lard.

Because partial hydrogenation of plant oils can replace animal fats, the resulting products can be consumed (barring other ingredient and preparation violations) by adherents to Kashrut (kosher) and Halal, as well as by adherents to vegetarianism in Buddhism, ahimsa in Jainism and Hinduism, veganism, and other forms of vegetarianism."

These paragraphs are talking about uses, benifits, use among vegetarians and the melting point of fat. I really dont see the majority of this text belonging in this section, it should be cut up and put elsewhere. No I'm not going to do this myself, I dont know anything about the subject matter. Harley peters 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The text is there because it explains WHY people put trans fats in food. I think it has some value there. However, I will take that as feedback and see if it can be better integrated. I'm going to be away for 10 days or so, but will look at it when I get back if no one else has. -- cmh^TC 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Saturated?

The article currently says that trans fat is a kind of saturated fat. Is this technically correct, given that a trans fat by definition has at least some hydrogen atoms missing, so that there can be a trans bond? Frankg 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, any double bond, cis or trans, means it's not saturated. I don't know if kjsuisei was deliberately vandalizing the article or is simply confused, but I have restored the original wording of the lead paragraph.InNuce 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Asimov

I removed this text from the page today:

(The penultimate section, "Fats in the Kitchen," of [[Isaac Asimov]]'s ''The World of Carbon'' [various publishers, 1958, 1962] suggests this may in fact be a reversion to a much older forumulation. Asimov also mentioned that the non-hydrogenated cottonseed oil is quite cheap, but unpalatable.)

I think there isn't quite enough context here for it to add to the article. If someone has the reference and can pull something useful out it could fit somewhere potentially. However, if asimov simply proposed that hydrogenated oils could be cut with liquid oils this might be more appropriate at Crisco than at Trans fat. -- cmh^TC 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New York

As far as I know, New York is just asking restaurants to limit trans fats to .5g per item, maybe put this in there instead of saying they want to completely eliminate? Just an idea TheEasterBunny 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is supported by the references then go ahead. -- cmh^TC 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics?

Some parts of this article italicize trans (because the word exists in Latin?) and others do not. The FDA seems to prefer italicizing trans, but sometimes does not. IHMO, "trans fat" is a bona fide English word, and italicizing part of it is jarring. Wiktionary doesn't italicize it, either. --VAcharon 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This was dealt with under the section titled POV above. The idea is to present the proper name trans fatty acids in the first sentence, then establish that the common way of writing it is unitalicized "Trans fat". The article then uses "Trans fat" as this is the most recognizable and common usage, per Wikipedia policy. -- cmh^TC 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a search through the article and found that indeed not all the references were changed at the time. I removed the rest. The only italicized trans words are references to the chemical concept rather than the type of fat. I also removed "trans fatty acids" from the article after the first line, except for within quotes. -- cmh^TC 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Separating corporate and government response

With more and more companies getting on the bandwagon, the US section is starting to be burdened with stuff that applies in other places. For example, the KFC thing is relevant to Canada and perhaps other KFC national chains too, yet it's buried in the US section. I think we need to separate the government regulation and public responses that are specific to countries from the corporate things that are clearly international. What say you? -- cmh^TC 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can some one write which contain how much trans-fat in which cooking oils like vegetable oil/corn oil/canola oil/olive oil

There shouldn't be any unless the oil is hydrogenated or otherwise chemically altered. Frankg 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Myths about trans fats

Removed this content from the page tonight. Explanations for removal will be interspersed with "myths".

• Humans can't metabolize trans fats. If this were true, then trans fats would be completely calorie-free instead of containing 9 Calories per gram of useful energy.

The problem with this myth is that it isn't clear it is a myth. All fats contain energy, and there is no reason why trans fats shouldn't. There is already a comment (albeit minor) in the article that says that trans fats contain calories. To include this we should have some sources to show this is a misunderstanding.

• Trans fats are no different for your health than any other fat. Trans fats, like saturated fats, are essentially straight molecules. This means that they naturally pack very densely into dangerous plaques inside blood vessels. This characteristic has a significant and direct effect on heart disease. Cis-isomers of monounsaturated fats do not share this unhealthy characteristic.

This is incorrect as far as I know. Cholesterol forms plaques, and consumption of trans fat upregulates LDL cholesterol. I am not familiar with reliable sources that state that trans fats stack in the bloodstream. If there are some, please provide.

• Evolutionarily speaking, the first time humans encountered trans fats was when vegetable shortening was invented. Trans fats do occur naturally, notably in cow's milk and beef, and so humans have encountered trans fats in their diets for untold millenia. Trans fats can also form in very small quantities in response to high cooking temperatures, or in the presence of acids such as vinegar, particularly if a metal (such as Nickel, which is common in dirt) is also present.

The question of natural sources of trans fat is already covered in the article. I do not believe trans fats can be synthesized at normal cooking temperatures at standard pressure. Ironclad sources would be required for this.

• Synthetic trans fats are noticeably different from natural trans fats. A spoonful of a synthetic trans fat such as elaidic acid -- the trans isomer of oleic acid (the main constituent of olive oil) -- may contain trace amounts of the metals used to catalyze the process (such as Nickel or Platinum), but the the synthetic elaidic acid is itself chemically identical to naturally occuring elaidic acid. The primary difference is that a spoonful of partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening may contain very large amounts of trans fats, whereas a similar amount of all-natural lard or butter would contain a relatively low amount of trans fats. On the flip side, the butter contains twice as much saturated fat compared to the shortening.

I'm not sure where the myth is here. In any case, it misses the point which is that any unsaturated fat can theoretically be hydrogenated; if you start with different non-trans fats you'll get different non-trans isomers... not just elaidic acid. Natural trans fats are not made of soybean oil, so they are different. See reference in the main article text.

• Trans fats build up in the body and cause nerve damage that reduces the IQ of the person eating them. Trans fats are metabolized by the human body and do not build up or interfere with nerve function. In fact, during the century that synthetic trans fats have been commercially available, human IQ has risen almost 20 points due to improved health and nutrition, particularly among the less affluent people who were more likely to choose partially hydrogenated fats as an economical alternative to butter. This presumably could not have happened if trans fats impaired nerve function.

Trans fats also do not clog sewage systems, shuttle launch equipment, or degrate the performance of Hi-Fi audio systems. This is the first I've heard of someone thinking they lower IQ by decreasing neural function. We'd need a reliable source that says this is a widespread belief.

Text was removed, and comments inserted by me. -- cmh^TC 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Any study related how it affects the consumption of transfat foods for a pregnant woman? As we knew, pregnant woman always craves for food they see in the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinmacabasco (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

How do different oils compare in regard to home cooking. For example, as I understand it, olive oil is good for you in salad dressings, but in frying with olive oil the oil will easily become a trans fat. Is it possible to list cooking oils (olive, peanut, sesame, rape-seed(canola), sunflower, etc.) in order of susceptibility to becoming 'trans' during cooking?

This is a good question because it represents a common misunderstanding - you are correct in that heated oil can become dangerous, but not because trans fats are formed. Rather, heated unsaturated oils can become peroxides or other similar unhealthful chemicals. The most stable oils are saturated ones, such as coconut oil or palm oil (or butter, although it can burn easily). Frankg 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can medium-temperature fry with olive oil.. not too hot because olive oil has a relatively low smoke point. The main reason olive oil is not used for frying is cost.

Question

How does the product "Benecol" (a margarine-like spread) claim to have "No Trans Fat" while its 3rd and 7th ingredients are "Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil" and "Hydrogenated Soybean Oil?" Is there some way of separating the cis fat from the trans fat? Is it a secret proprietary method or just difficult and/or expensive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.38.7 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

From what i've read in a food magazine, the term "partially hydrogenated" means a mixture of non-hydrogenated and fully hydrogenated fat, and not trans-fat as one might believe. /Gustaf Rydevik 81.227.165.12

"Partially hydrogenated" oil always contains trans fat. The company that makes Benecol is probably taking advantage of the fact that less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving can be labeled as "no" trans fat. Frankg 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Separation of commercial response from national regulation

I have tried to split the commercial stuff from (primarily) the US regulatory frameworks and municipal salvos.

The most noticeable change in content (as opposed to reorg) that this produced is that I decided to try to reduce all the "such and such a company is making this specific type of change by this exact date" type content. IMO (and this is just my opinion) the Trans fat article is the wrong place for blow-by-blow details of what every chain is doing and when. This information is better placed on the page of the chain. I have retained a reference for each company, preferably to a press release that has their gory details, should someone wish to track the information down. I did retain fuller descriptions of Kraft and KFC because they were the subject of notable/notorious lawsuits. For some reason the walt disney theme parks and products seemed notable as well so I retained that content.

I would be happy to hear what people think of the reorg and the handling of the individual companies. -- cmh^TC 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I am happy with the quality of the article now. I'm also requesting a peer review to get more eyes on it. -- cmh^TC 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

'Trans fats' as a goal of hydrogenation

I'm making a pass through the article because I've realized that the article implies that trans fats are desirable for industry, and that they are the goal of hydrogenation. This is not true. The goal is to harden liquid oils, and reduce the number of double bonds to limit rancidity. The fact that the remaining double bonds become 'trans' bonds is a side effect of the process that adds hydrogen. -- cmh^TC 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone please add a brief sentence to this article, explaining: Why would a "cis bond" molecule turn into a "trans bond" molecule? To this non-chemist, it seems that any particular fat molecule would either (a) not react with the hydrogen, staying the same, or (b) react with the hydrogen, becoming saturated. --75.19.73.101 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion: Chains eliminating trans fats

I am thinking of removing the other chains that are eliminating trans fat. This is the bulleted list at the bottom of the Food industry response section. My reasoning is that this isn't a complete list, and WP is not a directory, collection of links, etc.

This begs the question of what criteria should be used to determine which companies SHOULD be listed in this section.

In my view, if a chain or product has become particularly notable for its trans fat (e.g. Crisco, Kraft, McDonalds, KFC, etc.) then it is notable here. But simply saying "we removed the generic crisco from our biscuits" is more than adequately covered on the company's own page. -- cmh^TC 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So far you've removed the European companies that have removed trans fats and kept the USA ones. Your idea of notability seems to be a bit country-specific. Nunquam Dormio 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm not sure how to approach that. Most of the big things relevant to Trans Fat from a corporate perspective have happened in the states (where I am not, by the way, I'm in Canada). It may be an artifact of transnational junk food chains being a US phenomenon. Are you aware of any others that should be listed? I am open to suggestions, or better yet -- please add/remove from that section to improve it. -- cmh^TC 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on a Category:Transfat Free Guaranteed or some variation? Most of the major chains are making promises now, but a visible indication they've followed through would be very helpful to people trying to make healthier choices. LeadSongDog 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Commendation

I stumbled upon this article today, and it is very well done. It may be ready very soon for GA nomination.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important topic that continues to receive growing attention in the media; cmh deserves a lot of credit for keeping it updated, informative, and neutral. Frankg 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- cmh^TC 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Industry changes to the trans fat article

I have received the following today by email:

I have reviewed your contribution to Wikipedia on the subject of "trans fat"

with interest. It is apparent that you have spent considerable time in researching this subject and you are to be commended for collecting and summarizing a large amount of information on trans fats.

I have followed the trans fat issue closely for over 20 years, as I represent the fat and oils processing industry in the U.S. I have taken the liberty of making some modifications in your original text to provide improved balance and remove bias. If you have any questions regarding any of the changes, please feel free to contact me.

RMR

Robert M. Reeves, President

Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, Inc.

I have removed the contact information, which I will make available upon request rather than putting it in the database.

The changes appear to have been made to an older version of the article, and some recent changes have been obliterated. I believe that the edits are made in good faith, but I am not sure that we have a less biased article today. I have not yet read the changes in detail, but I think we should have a discussion here before proceeding. Editors are invited to give their thoughts. Otherwise I'll go through the edits in a little bit and try to make some proposals. -- cmh^TC 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This attempt at POV by the food industry must be stopped at all costs, up to and including a total rewrite or deletion and recreation as a stub to be expanded! Wikipedia will NOT be used to spread propaganda and lies!  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I am bothered by some of the modifications (mostly when references are removed) but most of the changes were minor. In fact, I am encouraged that an industry figure would take the time to open up communications about the issue. Frankg 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the references is what bothered me the most, followed by the weasel words. Problem's been fixed for now anyway. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The industry user appears to have been blocked. Not sure about that, seems a bit on the harsh side. I think some of the material might have been OK. It would likely be best to merge in content from their edit into the article instead of trying to edit from their old revision anyway. Seems like a WP:BITE to me though.

Frankg, do you think we should get that user unblocked? -- cmh^TC 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 indefblocked him for taking the name of an organization, not for the edits however POV they are. Apparently that's against the rules.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to warn you, with the heightened profile of this subject material, about trolls or good-faith contributors attempting to edit from <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/transfat.html" target=_"blank">this POV</a>, as I continue to encounter it in discussion forums elsewhere despite its outdated info and clearly industry-biased POV, but I'm sure you're on top of it. Fascinating article, btw. 64.57.108.181 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reader.

No real opinion on the blocking, but it would be worth looking through the edit in question and picking out anything that might fit well in the actual article. Frankg 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the ban. I'm glad it wasn't because of the edit. Ok. I don't have time for this tonight, but I will go through and restore parts of the edit that seem balanced. -- cmh^TC 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. Try to avoid his weasel words and removal of sources is all I ask. You have an excellent day, sir. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes from review of industry-supplied material

• Intro: Discarding their changes to introductory material in general. Weasel wording of "sufficient quantity" to be a health risk is in conflict with the major scientific consensus material cited in this article. Their other diffs here were largely rollbacks due to them working with an older version of the article.
• Presence in food: I removed their assertion that 20-25% of trans consumed are from animal sources. This claim is removed as WP:OR as I don't see this in the cited article (which I have now read). I removed our assertion that shortenings are partially hydrogenated. This is false as there are expeller pressed shortenings that are non-hydrogenated. Replaced vague assertion about margarine's content with facts from the article they cited. I removed our weasel wording insinuating that manufacturers use hydrogenated oils for cost reasons. We don't have the data to support that, and the brief web searching I did indicates it may not be cheaper, at least for frying. I also reorganized things a bit and connected the fast food content to frying which was not really discussed in this section before.
• Nutritional guidelines: I have removed all their changes in this section. The (IMO) offensive statement that the NAS guidelines are based on assumptions was particularly bad. The 5-6% number is unsourced, and does not agree with most reliable sources cited in the article. The Hunter article, if that was the source, is a meta-analysis of self-report studies with estimations of likely trans content. The existing articles are much more rigourous.
• History: Replaced our content concerning the financial aspects as this is sourced directly from the article. Compromise wording on the artificially hardened oils question by using wording found in the source. Their change to correlational language in the medical hypotheses reference is a sign that they either didn't read the source, or are trying to pull something; I put the causational language used by the source back.
• Chemistry: I kept their expert information that length and time of process also matters.
• Health risks: I have largely reverted this material. The material appears designed to weasel word things that were well supported. Other additions appear to be inappropriate for this section of the document, or consist of long out-of-date research. I think this section was largely balanced.
• Public response and regulation: Removed blurb at start of this section. Ours was slanted and theirs made assertions that some countries had chosen not to regulate, without citation... really the thing was factless so I cut it. I retained their correction concerning nutritional claims allowed by the FDA, and also their clarification on NYC limits.
• External links: I felt the added links did not add significant information to the topic of trans fats that are not already present in the article.

Comments welcome. -- cmh^TC 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CMH, I love you. It's perfect!  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we go about nomming this thing for 'Good Article' status? I believe it's at least A-class.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to see this article nominated for WP:GA or at WP:FAC. Both of those require a stable article (not too many big changes) and this one is seeing a lot of action after the NYC trans fat captured the media's attention. I hope it'll be proposed for FA status in the next few months. -- cmh^TC 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes by User:Eric Kvaalen

I partially reverted this edit. First, thanks for cleaning up some details in the chemistry section. I left most of those, only removing the hedges about the block diagram which I dealt with by clarifying that it's a diagram in the title. I doubt people will be getting out protractors anyway. I reverted the Hu section because first, my reading of Hu is that he is specific that the trans stats refer to to each incremental 2% increase, so changing it to imply the data is valid only for 1-3% is going against the source IMO. I also think the new wording is simply more confusing than the original. I did leave your addition of the confidence interval because I thought that was a good idea. Regarding the introduction, I don't think the addition of caloric "value" is relevant to trans fats specifically. The comment by the NAS is clearly meant to refer to trans fats qua trans fats and the caloric thing just seems like a sideshow. I left a few grammatical things my way because they read better to me in Canadian english, but I guess I wouldn't scream if they were swapped again. -- cmh^TC 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation to place trans fat into its own category

Why do I say this? They're very different from the rest of the "unsaturated" fats, in that sources are almost exclusively man-made in this day and age. Odin of Trondheim 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw some knowledge into the trans-fat / trans fatty acid discussion: Conjugated Linoleic Acid is in fact, a trans fatty acid. In studies it has been shown to lower risk / benefit health concerning: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity. It is a form provided by beef. Studies conducted at the University of Missouri - Columbia show increased ocurence in beef carcass meat when intensive grazing methods have been used (increased grass consumption with decreased grain consumption). This is not to say that grain fed cattle produce less of this benificial trans fatty acid, only that pasture feeding increases it's occurence. I am unsure of the relation of this befeficial trans fatty acid to linoleic acid found in soybeans. I have only heard that a genetically engineered variety of soybean was produce that does not contain this (linoleic) acid.

````concerned student @UM-C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.206.43 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A picture would be good

Anyone have a picture of, like, a big tub of hydrogenated oil? If consumers saw what they were eating, they might be a little less tolerant of products containing trans fats. A block of Crisco might do, but people have probably been desensitized to its appearence and texture for too long for it to have an impact. Vranak 23:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Well, after 6 months of work (with thanks to all you other contributors too) I think this article is now as good as I can make it. I've self-nominated it as a featured article candidate. If you would like to support (or oppose) this status, please do so here. Thanks! -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

trans/cis links issue

The pages linked by "trans" and "cis" in the opening paragraph are terrible, and those pages reference back to this trans-fat page. The Chemisty section on this trans-fat page is an excellent explanation of both "trans" and "cis". I'm not really sure how to go about fixing this.. maybe move the chemistry section out to a newly combined trans/cis page, or maybe just have "trans" and "cis" link down to the Chimistry section in the opening paragraph. Jeffhoy 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it's not an excellent explanation, because of the 90° angles used everywhere. The geometry of saturated carbon (SP3) and unsaturated carbon double bonds (SP2) are very different (tetrahedral vs. flat), which is not reflected by the graph - one could call the drawings plain wrong, for that reason. The same is true for the trans article, but it is correct in the cis article. And don't call me pedantic - someone is trying to explain geometries (i.e. cis and trans) and is getting the (overall) geometry wrong! 199.74.98.43 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

taking a break

I'm taking a bit of a break from editing. A lot of work was done in the last few months leading up to the FAC posting. Now, I'm feeling tired and need to recharge. Just letting you all know that I'm not watching things closely at the moment. -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep the vandals and spammers at bay. Nunquam Dormio 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Steen Stender

I removed the following sentence that I originally added:

According to Steen Stender of Gentoffe University Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark has seen a 20% drop in deaths from heart disease since the country's 2003 ban.

as a clarification came through later:

"We quoted Steen Stender as saying that Denmark has seen a 20 per cent fall in deaths from heart disease since the 2003 ban on trans-fats (6 January, p 13). He clarifies that there was a 20 per cent fall between 2000 and 2005."

Nunquam Dormio 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this true?

Is it true that if you eat trans fat, you can't get rid of it by working out like regular fat, and the only way to get rid of it is lyposuction? 71.194.136.20 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Frankg 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The human body doesn't make fat out of the fat you eat. Fat and weight gain are caused by how many refined sugars (carbohydrates)you eat. Any fat you have is your body's fat which your body made by refined sugars stimulating it to release insulin, it is not trans-fat, so you can still get rid of it. They human body doesn't work so literally as to store the fat in your food as human body fat, remember there is this thing called 'digestion' during which fats, carbs, and protiens are broken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.6 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

cis redirection

Cis fats are NOT trans fats. They are very different. If this isn't fixed, I will not allow my college classes to use Wikipedia as a source.

Where is it that you see an error? Frankg 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankg: He means this: Cis fat (redirects to Trans fat at the moment 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unknown Person, who has not signed: You should not allow "your college classes" to use Wikipedia as a source anyways - Wikipedia pages are not citeable. If they contain references to proper articles, nobody can be prevented to use and cite those as a source, though :) Just my 2 cents - anyways, it's just a redicrection - so your college classes never actually read their sources?!?!?! 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Two 'trans fat' articles

There are two different articles titled 'Trans fat' (trans-fat and trans fat)--200.125.12.130 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. They are not different articles, the first redirects to the second. 83.67.217.254 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogenated fat

I just added them to the intro. Please create redirects, I was very surprised not to be able to search for them. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...trans fats are a component of hydrogenated fats, but they are not quite the same thing. Not sure how to rectify this. Frankg 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do need an entry for "hydrogenated fat". Maybe nutritionists confuse the two, but chemists are a bit more specific? On food packages I definitely see both "hydrogenated fats" and "trans-fats". Cheers. 205.228.73.12 11:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the term hydrogenated fats to the article on hydrogenation, which seems more appropriate - hydrogenated oil already redirects there. Thanks for bringing this up! Frankg 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. My reading of this

"Health concerns associated with the hydrogenation of unsaturated fats to produce saturated fats and trans fats is an important aspect of current consumer awareness."

is therefore: hydrogenated fats are a generic term that may refer to either saturated or trans fats, but there are some trans fats and saturated fats that are not hydrogenated fats. So in terms of set theory, hydrogenated fat is the union of two subsets of trans fats and saturated fats. Is that right? Would a Venn diagram be inappropriate? 83.67.217.254 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it, although really, the additional trans and saturated fats are a result of the hydrogenation process. In other words, say we start with a hypothetical fat that is 1/3rd polyunsatured, 1/3rd monounsatured, and 1/3rd saturated. The fat undergoes the hydrogentation process, but only partially (full hydrogenation results in 100% saturated fat molecules). So, afterwards many of the polyunsaturates have become monounsaturated, some have become trans, and fewer have become saturated. Many of the monounsaturates have become trans, and some of them have become saturated. The saturated fraction remains the same. The new, hydrogenated fat, might be 1/8th polyunsaturated, 1/4th monounsaturated (some of which were unchanged, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), 1/4th trans (most of which used to be monounsaturated, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), and 1/2 saturated (some of which used to be monounsaturated, and a smaller amount used to be polyunsaturated). Frankg 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need the italics?

The title says it all. Do we really need to have the word trans italicized throughout the article? I realize it's a Latin prefix, but it's also a word that, at least in my circles, has entered the general vocabulary. Most importantly, though, I found that the italics were a major visual distraction for me while reading the article. David Norris 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Hydrogenated" vs. "partially hydrogenated"

If an ingredient of a commercial food is labeled as "hydrogenated fat" (or "hydrogenated oil"), what does that mean exactly? What fraction of the fatty acids is still allowed to be unsaturated, and at what fraction of unsaturated fatty acids are the manufacturers required to call it "partially hydrogenated"? Icek 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the US, if it says "hydrogenated," then the oil was fully hydrogenated - i.e., all the fatty acids have been converted to saturates. If it says "partially hydrogenated," then the hydrogenation process was stopped part-way through, which is when trans-fats have been formed. If the process were seen all the way through, then the trans fats would have turned to saturates. Frankg 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the theory, but when I look into the USDA food database at "Oil, industrial, palm kernel (hydrogenated), filling fat" it still has got 5.705% monounsaturated fatty acids, including 4.658% trans fatty acids. With "Oil, soybean, salad or cooking, (hydrogenated)" it's more extreme: only 14.9% of the fat is saturated fatty acids. Icek 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are partially hydrogenated, and mislabeled - the distinction between "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated" is a legal one, set by the FDA's regulations. Frankg 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but as a chemical reaction is usually not totally efficient, there will be some unsaturated fatty acids left in any real hydrogenated fat. There should be a limit on how much unsaturated fatty acids makes a fat "partially hydrogenated". Icek 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here is the regulation (look under (a)(14)). Frankg 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and BTW, I asked the same question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (see here). Unfortunately the regulation doesn't really define "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated". Icek 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Many folks use "hydrogenated" as short-hand for "partially hydrogenated," the USDA included. Remember that the USDA is a very separate entity from the FDA, which has strict rules about it as far as food labels go. As far as the chemical process, there's a point at which the oil in the hydrogenation chamber just stops reacting to hydrogen - at that point, it's fully hydrogenated. Frankg 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you detect the stopping of the reaction, and how at which pressures, temperatures etc. - these details determine how much unsaturated fatty acids will be left. Icek 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean "If a fat molecule becomes completely hydrogenated, it is no longer a trans fat or any other kind of unsaturated fat molecule -- it becomes a saturated fat molecule." ? If se, please explicitly state this in the article. --75.19.73.101 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty close. If it was literally completely hydrogenated it would also drive off the oxygen, so it would become an alkane. But in normal parlance, a saturated fatty acid is one in which all the carbon bonds are fully saturated by individual hydrogen atoms except for the single COOH group at one end that defines it as a fatty acid (vice CH3 for alkanes or COH for alcohols).LeadSongDog 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal bias

This article is written from a liberal slant. Trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat, and it is being portrayed here as an absolute evil. Although it has no benefits, neither do many other things that people choose to do. DRosenbach <sup>(Talk | Contribs)</sup> 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the current landscape of the research in this field, you may have a difficult time proving the assertion that "trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat." Frankg 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wonder how this is a "liberal slant." Yes, many self-professed conservatives doubt the popular image of trans fats, others are concerned about lawsuits involving trans fats, and even more express unease about any bans on foodstuffs that consumers choose to use — such bans being contrary to free-market principles — but most people would not view the actual science and studies about trans fats as being "liberal." Calbaer 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

...How does an article on nutrition have a liberal slant? You might as well claim that the Vitamin C article subtly promotes Bolshevism. Strad 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the Vitamin C article does mention Linus Pauling ;\) LeadSongDog 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm speechless. Don't conservatives have anything else to do after 2006? Scientific research says the stuff is lethal. Politics comes into play how? Blaze33541 (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction section

I looked up this article to check what Trans Fats were and neither the overview section nor the article itself was that helpful. The article appears to be rather academic, which is of course one way of structuring it. But I suspect that many people including myself are looking more for something like this -

Fats in foods are made up of 4 different types of fatty acids - polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated and trans. Trans fats are found naturally in some animal-based foods, but are also formed when liquid oils are made into semi-solid fats like shortening and hard margarine.

The above is taken from Health Canada website. Any thoughts on making the Introduction a bit more consumer-friendly ? Alex Pankratov 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should be made a bit more reader-friendly, but I'm not happy with the Health Canada definition. Polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and saturated are all terms dealing with how many double bonds are in the fatty acids, but trans has to do with, well, trans and cis isomerism. I don't know if there's really an easier way to introduce it. Maybe something like:

A trans fat is a fat which contains at least one unsaturated trans-fatty acid — that is, the fatty acid has at least one carbon–carbon double bond, and the long carbon/hydrogen chains on either side of the double bond are situated diagonally from each other. A particular class of trans fat occurs, in small quantities...

But that doesn't properly capture trans-isomerism, and I have a feeling it would still be confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the concept. Strad 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm sure CH's definition is dumbed down, but that's exactly IMO what's missing from the introduction. What might work is the "in other words" approach. Start with a formal/academic definition (i.e. keep what's there already) and then give a one sentence layman summary similar to CH's 2nd sentence .. for people like myself :) See, for example, how it's done in Hamachi (which is a computer software, but there is a clear similarity). Alex Pankratov 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Health canada's mono/poly/sat/trans is just wrong. It was widely criticized as I recall when it came out. Trans fats are unsaturated. Non-trans unsaturateds are good for you, trans ones are bad. Saturated fats are in the middle. You can have mono- and poly- unsaturated trans fatty acids. This article is on trans fats themselves, an overall picture probably belongs in Fat IMO. -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If 'dumbed down' was sought, we would simply say Fats which are solid at body temperature are dangerous. Stick with oils if you care about your health. But we're not really seeking 'dumbed down', are we? LeadSongDog 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the intro has to be more user friendly. Articles on Wikipedia should start out more like encylopedia entries then the father down you read they should get more in depth and scientific. When I found the trans fat article I just wanted to know if hydogenated oils were the same as trans fats. Before you get into the whole carbon-carbon double and diagonal molecules you should state simply what trans fats are. Perhaps 'a man-made' fat that is formed by hydogenating oil to produce such products as margarine and bases for cosmetics, it's one of the four fatty acids etc...' And maybe why it's named 'trans' fat which I would guess denotes it has been transformed from liquid to solid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.47.31.6 (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

history

the history section leaves out a few things. hydrogenated vegetable oil was originally used to fatten swine. it fattened them all right, then gave them tumors. faced with a surplus stock that they could no longer sell to farmers, crisco called it a food product and gave away cookbooks to encourage human consumption. Bruce Fife, N.D. wrote "saturated fat may save your life" a really good book full of research about fat. it's probably worth a look when writing about the differences and problems with unsaturated fats. 76.217.125.14 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fife's work meets our standards here. Not even close actually. --Ronz 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Inventor

The bio on the inventor Wilhelm_Normann is much more extensive in German than English. It includes patent references that could illuminate much of the content in this article. I've requested a translation.LeadSongDog 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The translation is up.LeadSongDog 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to presence in food category

I wanted to mention why I undid a few recent changes to the article.

I restored the original order to the "presence in food" section for two reasons. First, I felt that the one sentence statement that 'partially hydrogenated ingredients = trans fat' was a bit misleading. It implied to me that only foods with PH oils had trans fats, which is not true. Second, I found it too abrupt a transition to jump straight from this statement to details about baking. I wanted to know more about trans fats (the topic of the article) before jumping to its uses. I think the changed ordering is good in the article introduction, though, just not in the details section.

Also, I have removed the list of foods containing trans fats. An absolute list like this is not going to work, as many of these foods can be (and were for years) prepared without trans fats. Many snack foods have no trans fat in many parts of the world. In Denmark, none of these foods contain significant levels of trans fats. I eat trans-free oven fries all the time. Non-hydrogenated frying shortenings are available, etc.

I encourage all editors to continue improving the article. -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Crosfield & Sons

A recent edit to the article in the "response" section says that "Joseph Crosfield & Sons" was the original producer of trans fat.

• First, the article currently states that Crisco was the first commercial hydrogenated fat, so we likely need a good citation to back up the Crosfield thing, if it is true.
• Second, trans fats are a byproduct of a chemical hydrogenation process intended to change the properties of fats... they are not something people set out to make. Crosfield therefore didn't set out to create trans fats, but rather to hydrogenate some oil or something... can we change the wording? -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In Wilhelm Normann's recently translated bio, their's a link to (iirc) a german language site at dgfett.de (or some similar). There it explains how the first production use of his process was at Crosfield & Sons. Crosfield was bought out by Lever Bros, later Unilever. It should be possible to verify the dates. The German and UK patents are also on record, but I gather he failed to secure a US patent, much to his later sorrow. Nobody asserted that they set out to make trans-fats, but that is the subject of the article.LeadSongDog 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:68.40.205.114 has twice deleted a para re the use of whale oil. I've reverted. See above for where it came from, or use an online translator (e.g. google or babelfish) to get a rough idea. The cited source clearly discusses why they used the name "Talgol" for whale fat. Also, by 1903 the availability of kerosene for lighting had brought the price of whale oil way down. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This article meets the current Good article criteria, and has been listed. Other than a couple of minor grammatical fixes that were just easier to fix as I was reading it, the article is well written with good and engaging prose, and well referenced (the one 'citation needed' tag that I came across for the McDs info was easy enough to find a reference for, so I just added it). The only real semi-major change that I made was promoting the 'history' and 'chemistry' sections, since this contains some good, basic information to start the article off with, and contributes to a better introduction.

One area of improvement could be including more specific information on the exact biochemical mechanisms by which trans fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease. This is briefly stated in the article, but not much is really said here. But other than that, this article is great! Good work! Dr. Cash 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a cite of the 2003 Gatto study on the connection to apolipoprotein(a) and cholesteryl ester transfer. It's a start.LeadSongDog 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on this. As a tertiary source we need to put these kinds of facts in context. The material added could be improved by explaining how it connects to the cholesterol test described. It's over my head so I can't do it, but an average reader of this article will likely not be able to make use of this information as it stands. Can it be better integrated? -- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Slightly contradicting facts in article

I'm no expert in the area, so I'm leaving the edits to others.

The History section defines the US FDA definition of zero grams trans fats per serving as less than one gram per tablespoon. Whereas the Public Response and Regulation/United States section says trans fat levels of less than a half gram per serving may be labeled as zero grams per serving.

I checked crisco.com's website to verify the serving size of Crisco shortening as 1 tablespoon, so these definitions are not equivalent. 68.88.202.65 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2003 FDA paper (at ref 60) is pretty arcane language, probably written for lawyers. As best I can read it, they couldn't decide what was reasonably achievable for a recommended daily value for non-vegans, so they chose to defer defining "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat".LeadSongDog 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about a definition for "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat", but the definition of "Zero grams of trans fat" which is defined and used on product labels now, and this article professes to define in two places with different meanings. The reference you mention, upon my skimming, only mentions that the FDA proposed to amend regulations to state that trans fat has to be reported on a nutrition label when the value is 0.5g or greater of trans fat per serving. 68.88.202.65 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Natural Trans Fat vs ManMade Trans Fat and a Wendy's Chili question

I'm interested to know if man made trans fat(like partially hydrogenated oil) is worse for your health than natural trans fat like that found in beef.

What brought me here was finding out that burgers have trans fat(was looking up Wendy's nutritional info). I try not to eat trans fat...but eliminating burgers from my diet(currently only 1 a week if that...) completely would be a downer.

Also, a large chili at Wendy's has 0.5g of trans fat...where would that be coming from? The little bit of beef in it?
Wendy's Nutrition

Thanks in advance Deathwish238 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Either that or the "soybean oil" is partially hydrogenated. Given that ground beef is the first (and so presumably the most plentiful) ingredient listed in the chili, I'd infer that it's the beef that's the source. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the rounding practice they're evidently using. Compare the TFA in large vs small chili: A 50% larger portion shows "0.5g" vs "0g" of TFA. This means that none of their "0g" numbers can really be trusted to mean anything but "less than 0.5g". It's plain old deceptive practice, even if the FDA says it's acceptable.LeadSongDog 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I realize that if the large chili has some trans fat that the small chili must have some as well. I think it'ld be annoying to have to list the exact amount when less than 0.5g, but they could just list it as <0.5g. Do you have any insight on the first part of my question? Thanks for the reply btw ---- Deathwish238 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to know what in the chili or burger has the transfat, unless the site (like Yum Corporation's nutritional site) breaks down the ingredients' nutritional info individually. Even a seemingly benign ingredient may have the transfat--beef, in general, has very small amounts of it.

In a lot of cases, like Arby's Roast Beef Sandwiches--the only ingredients are beef and bread. Where does the significant amount of trans fat come from? Most likely from a spray they use on it to "enhance the flavor"--not the beef's natural trans fat. Sailoralea (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Natural trans fat is not included in the definition of trans fat for nutritional labels.. so it shouldn't be the beef, unless the companies are being conservative (quite unlikely) [[5]]

There are some instances where Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is used in small amounts in products claiming to be "Trans Free" if you will with a footnote that the oil "adds a trivial amount of Trans Fat," though this too can be deceptive, such as in the case of cooking oil sprays where it is listed as such per serving, but if one were to measure a single serving size vs the amount of said products, you will realize that it's not really that "trivial" and I do agree that there should be a <.5g measurement on Nutritional Value panels so as to not mislead Trans fat-conscious consumers. - Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Percent of food energy

There are several places in the article that discuss trans fat intake as a % of total food energy. Is there anyone who could translate that to an absolute mass of trans fat for an average diet? ".. recommending in 2003 that trans fats be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake" and "Replacing 2% of food energy from trans fat with non-trans unsaturated fats" is meaningless to me. Looking at the food energy article, it appears that 1% of food energy for an average male is 25 kcal, or just under 3g for fats (using 9 kcal/g), but I'm not sure this is the right approach.

Start with a better estimate of basic caloric budget. The US guideline depends on age, sex, height, activity level, etc. The 1% of 2500 kcal you used might be reasonable for a moderately active male of 18-25 years age, but almost anyone else should be lower. Thus limiting TFAs to (2500 * 1% / 9) will be rather high for most people, but there's little or no harm in adopting a lower threshold.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone/Writing Style of the Article

I don't know if it's the result of vandalism or neglect, but the overall writing style of this article is inconsistent and lackluster. It lacks flow--it's like a series of factual statements rather than an informative article. I'm trying to revise it, but I can only do so much. Sailoralea (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Section ordering

I see the History and Chemistry sections have been moved above the presence in food and nutritional guidelines sections. I'm not going to undo this because, as the person who did the big reorg that put the food and nutrition stuff first, it's natural that I prefer things my way. I think it might be worth considering whether the article reads well right now. I don't mind the history section up front, but I think the Chemistry stuff is better back down below the presence in food and dietary guidelines sections. I believe most readers would prefer them that way (and indeed some anonymous reader has commented to that general effect above).-- cmh<sup>TC</sup> 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline tenses

In the final section of #Food industry response and more specifically, the #Major users' response area refers to past events in the future tense, indicative of old statements left unnoticed and, for the most part, need to be revised into the past tense and updates on the statuses/results of these undertakings. It definitely would be worthwhile to know what the general outcome was of all these switchovers from Trans Fats to a lack thereof.

Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Nyc-trans-poster.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nyc-trans-poster.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)