On Mar 26, 8:41*am, Van Chocstraw >
wrote:
> The lying cheating corporations in collaboration with the lying cheating
> government have agreed that .5 transfat in products can be labeled zero
> transfat. I think .5 grams is quite significant. We can't trust anything
> or anybody.

Apparently, you can eat up to 3.5 grams of transfat per day without
worry.
That's a lot of Oreos.

Or, you can just not eat junk at all, and know that you're getting 0
grams.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton said...

> On Mar 26, 8:41*am, Van Chocstraw >
> wrote:
>> The lying cheating corporations in collaboration with the lying cheating
>> government have agreed that .5 transfat in products can be labeled zero
>> transfat. I think .5 grams is quite significant. We can't trust anything
>> or anybody.
>
> Apparently, you can eat up to 3.5 grams of transfat per day without
> worry.
> That's a lot of Oreos.
>
> Or, you can just not eat junk at all, and know that you're getting 0
> grams.
>
> Cindy Hamilton


Cindy,

Isn't that a little besides the point?

I don't know where 3.5g of transfat has ever been established.

I know we've beaten this subject to death over the years but the FDA deemed
0.4g or less can be listed as 0g. Suppose everything you ate in the course
of a day all had 0.4g of transfat? You wouldn't ever know if you reached
the "as you say" 3.5g limit.

The 0.4g or less to "zero" is a reckless ****-up by the FDA!!!

Canada accounts for every 1/10g.

Best,

Andy

In article >,
Van Chocstraw > wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:41 am, Van Chocstraw >
> > wrote:
> >> The lying cheating corporations in collaboration with the lying cheating
> >> government have agreed that .5 transfat in products can be labeled zero
> >> transfat. I think .5 grams is quite significant. We can't trust anything
> >> or anybody.
> >
> > Apparently, you can eat up to 3.5 grams of transfat per day without
> > worry.
> > That's a lot of Oreos.
> >
> > Or, you can just not eat junk at all, and know that you're getting 0
> > grams.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> If butter says zero trans fat and has .5 grams it's an outright lie and
> not junk food.

From:

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html

Q: How will the nutrition label be different?

A: The FDA final rule on trans fatty acids (also called "trans fat")
requires that the amount of trans fat in a serving be listed on a
separate line under saturated fat on the Nutrition Facts panel (see
figure). However, trans fat does not have to be listed if the total fat
in a food is less than 0.5 gram (or 1/2 gram) per serving and no claims
are made about fat, fatty acids or cholesterol content.

Q: Is it better to eat butter instead of margarine to avoid trans fat?

A: No, because the combined amount of saturated fat and trans fat (the
cholesterol-raising fats) and cholesterol for butter is usually higher
than margarine, even though some margarines contain more trans fat than
butter.

[end of quote]

The cite above has a nice table about butter and margarine. It claims
that butter has .3g of trans fat per serving (one tablespoon).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel said...
>
> http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html

You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?

Dan,

Feel like an asshole, why dontcha!!!

Andy

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:10:01 -0500, Andy wrote:

> Dan Abel said...
>>
>> http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html
>
> You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?
>
> Dan,
>
> Feel like an asshole, why dontcha!!!
>
> Andy

i trust the FDA more than some random lunkhead on usenet, yes.

blake

On Mar 26, 8:18*am, Cindy Hamilton >
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:41*am, Van Chocstraw >
> wrote:
>
> > The lying cheating corporations in collaboration with the lying cheating
> > government have agreed that .5 transfat in products can be labeled zero
> > transfat. I think .5 grams is quite significant. We can't trust anything
> > or anybody.
>
> Apparently, you can eat up to 3.5 grams of transfat per day without
> worry.
> That's a lot of Oreos.

According to ONE study out of Penn State. I heard that on Morning
Edition as well.
>
> Or, you can just not eat junk at all, and know that you're getting 0
> grams.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

--Bryan

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:10:01 -0500, Andy wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel said...
> >>
> >> http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html
> >
> > You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Feel like an asshole, why dontcha!!!
> >
> > Andy
>
> i trust the FDA more than some random lunkhead on usenet, yes.


Part of what I quoted and cited was the FDA implementation of the laws
relating to nutritional labeling of transfats. That's their job. If
something goes to court, the lawyers for both sides will be quoting the
regs published by the FDA, as well as the original law.

For the rest, yes I trust the FDA more than the food industry or the
wackos who are fighting the food industry. I feel that the FDA should
be charting the middle path.

And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mar 27, 2:26*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> *blake murphy > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:10:01 -0500, Andy wrote:
>
> > > Dan Abel said...
>
> > >>http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html
>
> > > You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?
>
> > > Dan,
>
> > > Feel like an asshole, why dontcha!!!
>
> > > Andy
>
> > i trust the FDA more than some random lunkhead on usenet, yes.
>
> Part of what I quoted and cited was the FDA implementation of the laws
> relating to nutritional labeling of transfats. *That's their job. *If
> something goes to court, the lawyers for both sides will be quoting the
> regs published by the FDA, as well as the original law. *
>
> For the rest, yes I trust the FDA more *than the food industry or the
> wackos who are fighting the food industry. *I feel that the FDA should
> be charting the middle path. *

Like those wackos who thought that we should take the lead out of
gasoline and paint!
>
> And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.

Those wackos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

And imagine, this cute, innocent cartoon got made illegal to show on
TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A

Those wackos.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2:26*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:

> > For the rest, yes I trust the FDA more *than the food industry or the
> > wackos who are fighting the food industry. *I feel that the FDA should
> > be charting the middle path. *
>
> Like those wackos who thought that we should take the lead out of
> gasoline and paint!
> >
> > And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.
>
> Those wackos:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
>
> And imagine, this cute, innocent cartoon got made illegal to show on
> TV:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A
>
> Those wackos.

You make some good points, Bryan. Are the taxpayers still subsidizing
the tobacco growers? That's a weird one!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:26:02 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:10:01 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Abel said...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html
>>>
>>> You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?
>>>
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> Feel like an asshole, why dontcha!!!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> i trust the FDA more than some random lunkhead on usenet, yes.
>
> Part of what I quoted and cited was the FDA implementation of the laws
> relating to nutritional labeling of transfats. That's their job. If
> something goes to court, the lawyers for both sides will be quoting the
> regs published by the FDA, as well as the original law.
>
> For the rest, yes I trust the FDA more than the food industry or the
> wackos who are fighting the food industry. I feel that the FDA should
> be charting the middle path.
>
> And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.

just in case i wasn't clear, i was referring to andy as a lunkhead, not
you.

your pal,
blake

On Mar 27, 5:47*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2:26*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > > For the rest, yes I trust the FDA more *than the food industry or the
> > > wackos who are fighting the food industry. *I feel that the FDA should
> > > be charting the middle path. *
>
> > Like those wackos who thought that we should take the lead out of
> > gasoline and paint!
>
> > > And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.
>
> > Those wackos:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI
>
> > And imagine, this cute, innocent cartoon got made illegal to show on
> > TV:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A
>
> > Those wackos.
>
> You make some good points, Bryan. *Are the taxpayers still subsidizing
> the tobacco growers? *That's a weird one!

Tobacco subsidies will go away soon. They are part of the spending
that "doesn't work."

>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

--Bryan

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:26:02 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:10:01 -0500, Andy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dan Abel said...
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html
> >>>
> >>> You'd bet your bottom dollar on their claims?

> >> i trust the FDA more than some random lunkhead on usenet, yes.

> > And no, I'm not betting my bottom dollar.
>
> just in case i wasn't clear, i was referring to andy as a lunkhead, not
> you.

Yeah, that was pretty clear. Thanks, though, in case it wasn't clear to
others.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA