Is Trans Fat Hysteria The Salem Witch Hunt Of Our Time?
If you believe all the recent hype about the horrors of trans fat, heck, even Grandma’s lard is starting to look good.
I just read a study linking trans fat to infertility. Oh, puh-leeze.
Even nutritionist Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH, a professor at New York University, expressed skepticism about that one in an article published on WebMD today.
The Controversy Rages On
Trans fats are the latest target of the “food police.” Yes, studies show that trans fats increase LDL cholesterol (the bad one) and decrease HDL cholesterol (the good one).
So your risk of heart disease may increase.
But is the risk really that high? And is it dangerous enough for cities across the US to start banning trans fats from our food?
In an article posted on Yahoo! Health last November, Simeon Margolis, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, didn’t seem to think so.
He’s not a fan of trans fat. But he seemed to think a government ban was a bit much.
So do I.
An Inconvenient Truth
Of course, the food police forget to mention that our foods are now filled with these pesky trans fats because of their recommendation years ago to replace saturated fats.
That’s when they said trans fats were healthier.
Oops!
As anyone who switched to margarine from butter found out, the only thing that’s dangerous to follow is the recommendations of the food police.
So I’m always skeptical of blanket statements made by the people who run or interpret these food studies.
Statistics Can Give You Any Answer You Want
Or you may misinterpret the data. Or the study results may just be wrong.
And in case you question my credentials to make those statements, I once TA’d graduate-level Probability and Statistics.
But let’s say the food police are right for a change. Trans fats are so bad, they must be banned.
Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire
According to a new study published in the journal, Nutrition and Metabolism, trans fats are being replaced by interesterified fats in many foods.
Problem is, interesterified fats not only reduce HDL cholesterol (the good one) — just like trans fats — but they also significantly raise blood sugar and depress insulin, a diabetes risk.
So this may be even worse than what we’re eating now.
If you see “fully hydrogenated oil” on the ingredient list of your trans fat-free food, you’re eating interesterified fat. With all its potential health risks.
Here’s A Radical Idea
Why don’t the food police leave the rest of us alone before they kill us?
This is like the Salem witch hunt of our time. But their target is food.
They should go off and eat whatever they think is safe and we can go back to the saturated fats that made food taste good.
Almost anything eaten to excess will hurt you. But the French have shown that a high-fat diet by itself doesn’t necessarily cause mass heart disease.
Also, our bodies need some dietary fat as I’ll explain in my next post, “Low Fat Diets: The Hidden Dangers.”
I believe it’s time to stop treating every food or nutrition study as gospel, stop the witch hunt, and just return to some common sense.
Technorati Tags: trans fat, nutrition, cholesterol, high fat diets, low fat diets, food police










January 27th, 2007 at 12:20 am
I stopped listening to the food police a long time ago. They don’t want us to eat anything.
Every week they change their minds. I can’t even pronounce the new fat you talked about.
I’m with you. Leave us alone.
January 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I was for the transfat ban.
But now that I know about this new fat, I’m not so sure. Is anything safe to eat?
January 27th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I think a ban is taking things too far. I’m tired of all these studies. I agree with Debbie and Rob. The food police should leave us alone.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:10 am
[…] I’ve already blogged about how stupid and unhealthy a trans fat ban is in “Is Trans Fat Hysteria The Salem Witch Hunt Of Our Time” and “Ban Trans Fats, Increase Diabetes?” […]
March 12th, 2007 at 3:08 am
The people that are against the ban have weak arguments at best. Their whole basis for protest is the freedom of choice, however, if a person had a choice between a food product that wasnt damaging to their body, or one that actually does serious damage to their internal structure which would they choose? It is a stupid argument. The ban is positive because it forces food manufacturers and restuarants (in some areas) to do something that is in the consumer’s best interest, not just the companies cost concerns.
March 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Hi Lindsay,
Thanks for your comment. I understand why you feel the way you do. My initial thoughts were similar to yours. They’re getting rid of an unhealthy type of fat in our food.
But as I researched the subject, I found that the type of fat that is replacing trans fat may actually be worse for our health. It can increase our risk for diabetes and it still reduces HDL, the good type of cholesterol, so there’s still a heart health issue.
I blog about it in “Ban Trans Fats, Increase Diabetes?”
So the argument against the ban is much more than freedom of choice. If the government is going to mandate what is in our food, it should at least be healthier than what they’re banning. That may not be the case with the trans fat ban.
And if you remember, the whole reason we’re dealing with trans fats now is because the health experts decided that trans fats were healthier than saturated fats about a decade ago.
They were wrong then. Can we really be sure they’re right this time?
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
[…] Debbie Fontana is a full-time author and business owner who specializes in writing about health, weight loss, and nutrition. She invites you to visit her at ILoveToCheatDiet.com/blog and post your comments about the ban on trans fats. Do you agree? Disagree? Do you think the food police are helping or hurting us? Please post your comments at Stop The Trans Fat Ban […]